Imágenes de páginas


Where the grantee has knowledge that the § 1. Nature and grounds.
grantor intends to defraud his creditors, the *Act Feb. 27, 1867 (Laws 1866–67, p. 157)
question whether consideration was paid is 8 2 (Kirby's Dig. § 3707), relative to issuance
not material.-- Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) of garnishment to another county from a circuit

court on a justice's judgment filed therein, held
As under Rev. St. Jo, 1899, 8 3616, a home-repealed by Act 1889, entitled "An act to pro-
stead is exempt from attachment and execution, vide the procedure in judicial garnishment."
a conveyance thereof by husband to wife is Acts 1889, p. 168.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v.
not fraudulent as to his creditors.--Reed Bros. Bowman (Ark.) 1033.
v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

Under Kirby's Dig. $$ 3705, 4631–4633, 4634,
A deed of trust held not within Rev. St. 1899, held, a writ of garnishment may issue to an-
$ 3397, avoiding deeds conveying chattels to the other county from a circuit court on a justice's
use of the grantor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo. judgment filed therein.-St. Louis & S. F. R.
App.) 131.

Co. v. Bowman (Ark.) 1033.
A deed of trust held not void as to creditors & 2. Persons and property subject to
because of provision for sale of real estate at

request of mortgagor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo. A creditor held entitled to reach the interest
App.) 131.

of a tenant in a gathered crop, placed in the
§ 2. Remedies of creditors and purchas- hands of the landlord as security for debts, by

garnishment.-Groesbeck V. Evans (Tex. Civ.
*A wife's bare statement that the conveyance

App.) 889.
to her by her insolvent husband was in con-

sideration of a loan made years before held in-
sufficient to prevent the conveyance being treat-Charitable gifts, see "Charities."
ed as fraudulent.-Waters v. Merrit Pants Co. To wife, see "Husband and Wife," $ 2.
(Ark.) 879.

Transfer taxes, see "Taxation," 8 3.
In a suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudu-
lent toward creditors, evidence held to charge

the grantee with notice of the grantor's fraudu-
lent purpose.-Brite v. Guy (Ky.) 1069.

Of purchaser, see "Bills and Notes," $ 3;
A conveyance by a husband in failing cir- “Sales," § 4.
cumstances to his wife places upon the gran.
tee the burden of proving the good faith of

the transaction.— Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)

Statute authorizing commutation of sentence as
In a suit to set aside a fraudulent convey- invasion of pardoning power, see "Constitu-
ance, evidence held to support findings that tional Law," $ 1.
the grantee had knowledge of the fraudulent
intent of the grantor and that no considera-

tion was paid.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)

See “Indictment and Information."
In order to set aside a deed at the instance
of a creditor, the proof need not establish fraud

beyond all doubt.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)

Of public lands, see "Public Lands."
In an action to set aside a conveyance as
fraudulent, fraud may be proved by circum-

stantial evidence.— Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)

See "Indemnity"; "Principal and Surety."
Question as to whether the garnishee held Acceptance of check as guaranty, see "Bills
moneys in fraud of defendant's creditors huld and Notes," $ 1.
under the evidence one for the jury.-White v. Requirements of statute of frauds, see "Frauds,
Gibsou (Mo, App.) 120.

Statute of," $ 1.
Where there was evidence of conspiracy be- Reriew. of findings, see "Appeal and Er-
tween defendant and the garnishee to defraud ror," § 21.
the defendant's creditors, it was error not to 8 1. Discharge of guarantor.
permit plaintiff to introduce the application
of defendant to be discharged in bankruptcy.— without the guarantors' knowledge, that the in-

Where a contract of guaranty was changed
White v. Gibson (Mo. App.) 120.

debtedness accrued before the alteration can-
On an issue whether a transfer by an insol- not preclude the guarantors from insisting on
vent was fraudulent, evidence that shortly be their discharge.—John A. Tolman Co. v. Hun-
fore the transfer the insolvent had transferred ter (Mo. App.) 636.
other property to another party for less than
it was worth was admissible.-Horstman v.

Little (Tex. Civ. App.) 256.

Joinder of causes of action between, "A

tion." § 3.

Liability of guardian of indigent insane person
Delay in shipment, see "Carriers,” 1.

for support of ward, see "Paupers," § 1.

f 1. Custody and care of ward's person

and estate.

Under Kirby's Dig. 88 3804, 3805, 3808, a
See "Lotteries."

guardian held chargeable with interest because

of his failure to make a loan of his ward's

money.-Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.

§ 2. Accounting and settlement.
See "Attachment"; "Execution."

A guardian must introduce evidence to sus-
* Point annotated. Seo syllabus.




tain the challenged items of his final account.- repeals, the general road law.-Plowman v.
Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.

Dallas County (Tex. Civ. App.) 252.
Under Rev. St. 1889, § 5329, a settlement Provision of Acts 24th Leg. Sess. Laws 1895,
made by a guardian, without filing the exhibit p. 213, c. 132, authorizing the condemnation of
and giving the notice required by statute, held land for a road in certain counties in accord-
not a final settlement, but merely to have the ance with the railroad law, held mandatory.--
effect of an annual settlement as prima facie Plowman v. Dallas County (Tex. Civ. App.)
evidence.--May v. May (Mo. Sup.) 75.

The final settlement of a guardian stands up-8 2. Taxes, assessments, and work on
on the same footing as a judgment, and is con-

clusive as to all proper subjects of account in-
cluded and involved.-May v. May (Mo. Sup.) belonging to the county, which should be paid

The county road tax is, when collected, a fund

into the county treasury, to be expended under

the orders of the county court.-City of Tex-

arkana v. Edwards (Ark.) 862.
§ 1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-

Constitutional amendment No. 5, and Kirby's

Dig. $8 7351, 7358, relative to county road taxes
On habeas corpus, where bail is the only ques- and their expenditure, construed.-City of Tex-
tion, errors of the trial judge in rejecting or arkana v. Edwards (Ark.) 862.
admitting certain facts will not be considered
on appeal.--Ex parte Parker (Tex. Cr. App.)


Where a petition for habeas corpus is dis- See "Wills,” g 1.
missed, it is equivalent to a refusal to grant
the writ, and the remedy is by another applica-
tion.-Ex parte Billups (Tex. Cr. App.) 317.

Where, after an appeal from a judgment in See “Exemptions."
habeas corpus admitting appellant to bail, he Conveyance of in fraud of creditors,
gives bond and is liberated, the appeal will be

"Fraudulent Conveyances," $ 1.
dismissed.-Ex parte Elmore (Tex. Cr. App.)

8 1. Nature, acquisition, and extent.

Under the express provisions of Kirby's Dig.
HABITUAL DRUNKARDS. $ 3902, the debtor's right of homestead is not

forfeited by his omission to claim it as
See “Drunkards."

empt before sale on execution.—Isbell v. Jones

(Ark.) 593.

Where legal title to homestead is in wife, she

is entitled to the rents and profits against cred-
In civil actions, see “Appeal and Error," 88 itors of husband. --Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.)

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
$ 27.

The fee of the homestead of a widow is liable

to sale, subject to her right, by order of the

probate court, for payment of debts of the

husband.—Robbins v. Boulware (Mo. Sup.) 674.
By arbitrators, see “Arbitration and Award," Where land has become a homestead prior to
§ 1.

the owner executing a note which did not in-
In probate proceedings, see “Wills," $ 2. clude any of the purchase price of the land,

the payee could acquire no lien on the land as

security for the note.---Sweet v. Lyon (Tex.

Civ. App.) 384.
In civil actions, see “Evidence," 8 6

A judgment creditor of husband held not en-
titled to subject to lien vendor's lien notes

given the wife on sale of the homestead.-

Howard v. Mayher (Tex, Civ. App.) 409.
See “Descent and Distribution."

Homestead rights of tenant in common stated.

- Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.

§ 2. Transfer or incumbrance.

*Creditors may not complain of the convey.
See "Municipal Corporations," 88 7, 8.

ance to the wife of the homestead, although it
Accidents at railroad crossings, see

“Rail- is bought by the husband with his own funds.-
roads," $ 6.

Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.) 929.
Condemnation proceedings, see “Eminent Do- Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, conferring on a
main," $ 1.

homesteader the right to designate and choose
Duty of county clerk as to transmission of the part of the land which shall be exempt

transcript in highway proceedings, see “Cer- from execution under section 3616, a wife is
tiorari," $ 1.

entitled to select the particular part of land
Restraining opening road, see “Injunction,” conveyed to her by her husband, to the value
§ 1.

of the amount of exemption, which she will

retain as a homestead.--Reed Bros. v. Nichol-
§ 1. Establishment, alteration, and dis-

son (Mo. Sup.) 71.
Acts 24th Leg. Sess. Laws 1895, p. 213, c. Under Rev. St. 1899, $ 3616, relating to home-
132, constituting a special road law for certain stead exemptions, where land is subject to a
counties, and incorporating the provisions of mortgage, the homesteader held entitled to a
the railroad law (amended by Acts 26th Leg. liomestead to the amount of the exemption in
Gen. Laws 1899, p. 105, c. 10) regulating the what remains of the total value of the land
condemnation of land, is as to the condemnation after the mortgage is deducted.-Reed Bros. v.
of land for road purposes inconsistent with, and Nicholson (lío. Sup.) 71.

Point annotated. See syllabus.





The purchaser of a homestead acquired it un- / under the facts.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo.
affected by the lien of a judgment against the Sup.) 71.
grantor.- Howard v. Mayher (Tex. Civ. App.)

A party held not entitled to claim a home-

stead right without pleading it.-Sweet v. Lyon
Where land of a lunatic on which he resided (Tex. Civ. App.) 384.
as head of a family was sold to pay debts, the
question as to whether the purchaser acquired that the court required the guardian to place

Where land of a lunatic was sold, the fact
a good title held dependent on whether the the land on the inventory, as required by Rev.
property was the homestead of the lunatic when St. 1895, art. 1965, and failed to set it aside
it was sold.-Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) as a homestead, as required by article 2046, did

not waive the homestead exemption.-Griffin v.
Under Const. art. 16, 8 50, the county court | Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.
has no jurisdiction to sell the homestead of a
lunatic to pay the ordinary debts of the estate,
and a purchaser thereunder acquires no title.

--Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.

Admissions by accused, see "Criminal Law,"
3. Rights of surviving husband, wife, $ 9.
children, or heirs.

Competency of jurors, see "Jury," $ 3.
In partition, the fee-simple interest of infants Competency of witnesses, see "Witnesses," $ 1.
should be laid off with respect to their rights, Credibility, impeachment and contradiction of
given by Ky. St. 1903, § 1707, to occupy the witnesses, see "Witnesses," $ 3.
homestead of their deceased father during their Documentary evidence, see "Criminal Law,"
minority.-Campbell v. Asher (Ky.) 1067.

§ 10.
A widow with no minor children was en- Evidence of character of accused, see "Criminal
titled to the crops growing on the homestead Law," $ 8.
at the time of the husband's death.-Mahoney Evidence of similar offenses, “Criminal
v. Nevins (Mo. Sup.) 731.

Law," $ 8.

Examination of witnesses, “Witnesses,"
f 4. Abandonment, waiver, or forfei.

§ 2.

Hearsay, see "Criminal Law," $ 9.
*In a suit to restrain a levy on a homestead, Indictment in general, see "Indictment and In-
an instruction as to intent to abandon held

formation," 8 2.
erroneous as a charge on the weight of evi: Instructions in general, see "Criminal Law,"
dence.—Lynch v. McGown (Tex. Civ. App.) $ 17.

Opinion evidence, see "Criminal Law," & 11.
$ 5. Protection and enforcement of Questions presented for review, see "Criminal

Law," $24.
Under Rev. St. 1899, $ 3617, where an exe- | Relevancy of evidence and gestæ,
cution is levied on a homestead, the sale is

"Criminal Law," $ 7.
void unless the homesteader is given a right to Review in general, see "Criminal Law," 8 26.
make his selection.-Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. & 1. The homicide.
Sup.) 66.

Pocket knives are not per se deadly weap-
In a proceeding in equity to set aside a con-ons.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
veyance of land by a husband to his wife as

The bare fact that a wound inflicted by a
fraudulent to creditors, powers of court in
respect to finding and decree, where the land

weapon produced death is not conclusive that

it was
is occupied as a homestead, defined.-Reed

a deadly weapon.-Craiger v. State
Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

(Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
Even courts of equity are bound by the home-

§ 2. Murder.
stead laws of the state, and cannot, in proceed- the person they rob, shooting at them in self-

Robbers held not guilty of homicide, where
ings to enforce a judgment, order the home-
stead interest paid to the debtor in cash in-defense, kills a third person.-Commonwealth
stead of allowing him to designate the partie- v. Moore (Ky.) 1085.
ular piece of the land he will hold as such The fact that a participant in a homicide
homestead.-Reed Bros. Nicholson (Mo. fees from the scene thereof before the fatal
Sup.) 71.

shot is fired held not to relieve him from crim-
In a proceeding to set aside a conveyance of

inal responsibility:-State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.)

land by a husband to his wife as fraudulent
to creditors, evidence examined, and held in- $ 3. Manslaughter.
sufficient to show a reduction by the husband The provocation that will reduce a homicide
to his possession of the wife's money invested to manslaughter must arise at the time of the
by him in the land, so as to entitle him to such killing.–Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
money under the rules of the common law.-
Reed Bros. y. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

A husband is entitled to the custody of his

wife and to use force against her father to
Under Rev. St. 1899, 3617, relating to obtain custody of her, and is guilty of man-
homestead exemptions, a sheriff's sale of land slaughter only, on killing the father while under
subject to a homestead, without compliance excitement growing out of the difficulty.-Cole
with the statute, is void.-Reed Bros. v. Nich- v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
olson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

*Homicide held not manslaughter when de-
Whether land subject to a mortgage exceeds fendant had cooling time after previous alter-
in value the $1,500 homestead exemption over cation.-Franks v. State (Tex, Čr. App.) 923.
and above the mortgage can only be ascertain-
ed by commissioners appointed to value the $ 4. Assault with intent to kill.
land, as the statutes do not confer power on

Without a specific intent to kill there can be
the court-even on a court of equity—to de no assault with intent to murder.-Reyes v.
termine the question.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson State (Tex. Cl. App.) 245.
(Mo. Sup.) 71.

8 5. Excusable or justifiable homicide.
In proceedings to enforce a judgment, the set- To render one guilty of provoking a diffi-
ting a part of a homestead in kind held possible culty, he must be shown to have used some lan.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.


guage or done some act with that intent.—Gar- In a prosecution for murder, evidence held
za v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.

inadmissible that a pistol used by deceased in
To render one guilty of provoking a diffi- the conflict was unloaded, which fact was not
culty, it must be shown that he did some act

known to accused.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr.
at the time calculated to have that effect.-

App.) 221.
Pedro v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 233.

In a prosecution for murder, where the diffi-
Law of self-defense as applied to one accused culty arose from a report imputed to accused,
of assault with inten to comunit murder held it was error to exclude evidence by accused
not applicable to accused personally, so that that he did not start the report.- Roberts v.
accused's right of self-defense would be same

State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
as that of person in whose defense he was act- On a prosecution for murder alleged to have
ing.-Martinez v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234. been committed for the purpose of procuring

A husband held entitled to the custody of his decedent's money, certain evidence held admis-
wife and to the right of self-defense on danger sible in behalf of defendant as tending to show
to his life arising out of his efforts to secure that another committed the crime.-Johnson v.
her custody from her father.-Cole v. State State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence
*Mere pursuit of a person with intent to held not to raise the issue of manslaughter,
bring on a difficulty held not to deprive pur- and inadmissible.—Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr.
suer of right of self-defense.-Franks v. State App.) 238.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 923.

In a prosecution for murder, held not error
8 6. Indictment and information.

to permit a witness to testify to a statement
An indictment for murder held not defective, with the court's explanation in the bill of ex.

of defendant, when considered in connection
because the word "willingly" was used there-
in, instead of "willfully.”—Daniels v. State ceptions.—Hall v. Ŝtate (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.
(Ark.) 844.

A defendant on trial for murder relying on
Information in homicide held to have suf- self-defense held entitled to prove acts tend-
ficiently charged defendants with having in- ing to show the desperate character of decedent.
flicted the wound upon deceased from which

-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
he died.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

On a trial for homicide, the admission of

evidence of blood on the ground where the homi-
§ 7. Evidence-Admissibility in general. cide occurred and of the wounds of decedent

*In a prosecution for murder by shooting with held not error.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
a pistol, it was improper to ask a

witness | 341.
whether defendant was in the habit of carrying
a pistol or had that reputation.-Newman v.

On a trial for murder, the exclusion of evi-
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

dence as to what defendant had stated about
On a prosecution for the murder of defend: (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

his family troubles held error.–Cole v. State
ant's husband, held proper to admit evidence of
a conversation by a witness with defendant a On the trial of defendant for the murder of
short time before the homicide.-State v. Cum- his father-in-law, letters written by defendant
mings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

to his wife held admissible.—Cole v. State (Tex.
In homicide, statement of defendant held

Cr. App.) 341.
competent to show motive and intent.-State On a trial for homicide, certain evidence re-
v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

lating to decedent's physical condition held im-
In homicide, held not error to exclude cer- proper.—Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
tain testimony as to whether defendant insti- In a prosecution for murder, evidence that a
gated the principal actor to commit the crime. short time before deceased was killed he was
-State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.) 746.

drunk and quarrelsome held admissible, if de-
In a prosecution for murder, the rifle with fendant had knowledge of these facts.-Crow
which defendant killed deceased is admissible v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 814.
in evidence.--Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

$ 8. Dying declarations.

On prosecution for homicide, dying declara-
In a prosecution for murder, evidence that tions of deceased held admissible. State v.
defendant did not indorse the religious views Craig (Mo. Sup.) 641.
of deceased was competent on the question of
motive.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, held not error to

admit oral evidence of a dying declaration of
In a prosecution for murder, a note written deceased, objected to on the ground that a dy-
by defendant to deceased three days before the ing declaration had been taken in writing. -
killing, warning him to keep his stock out of Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
defendant's pasture, held admissible.-Long v.
State (Tex. Čr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, a statement by

deceased to his physician the morning after
In a prosecution for murder, evidence of the shooting held admissible as a part of the
certain threats by defendant against deceased predicate for the introduction of a dying dec-
held admissible. -Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) | laration.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

Sufficient predicate held laid for the adinis-
In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence sion of dying declarations.-Roberts v. State
as to threats made by defendant a year be- (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
fore the homicide held admissible as original

well as impeaching testimony.-Long v. 8 9. Weight and sufficiency.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

Evidence held to support a conviction for
In a prosecution for murder, held error to murder in the second degree.- Daniels v. State
exclude testimony by accused that deceased's (Ark.) 814.
relations with his children were friendly, to On a prosecution for murder, evidence con-
show that deceased could procure the children sidered, and held sufficient to corroborate the
to carry a note to his wife.-Upton v. State testimony of an accomplice. — Chancellor v.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 212.

State (Ark.) 880.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.



Evidence held sufficient to sustain a convic-jing right of self-defense with provoking diffi-
tion of murder in the first degree.—Moore v. culty.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
State (Ark.) 946; Goley y. Same (Ark.) 952.

On prosecution for homicide, defendant held
In a prosecution for assault with intent to entitled to charge as to previous threats by de-
kill, evidence held sufficient to show that deceased to injure defendant, under Pen. Code
fendants were guilty of aggravated assault. 1895, art. 713.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr.
-Hinson v. State (Ark.) 947.

App.) 215.
Evidence on trial for murder held to show Defendant on prosecution for homicide held
that the death of decedent resulted from the entitled to have Pen. Code 1895, arts. 651, 632,
act of defendant.--Casteel v. State (Ark.) 1004. relating to the cause of death, charged.--Arms-

In a prosecution for murder, evidence held worthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
sufficient to support a conviction.—Newman v. On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

to raise the issue of self-defense.--Armsworthy
On prosecution for murder, evidence held to

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
identify defendant as murderer.-State v. Heu- On prosecution for homicide, evidence held to
sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.

entitle defendant to charge on aggravated as-
On a prosecution for murder, evidence held sault.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
to establish the corpus delicti.---State v. Heu- | 215.
sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.

On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held
On a prosecution for murder, evidence con-

to entitle defendant to charge on manslaughter.
sidered, and held sufficient to warrant a con-

-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
viction of that crime in the second degree.- In a prosecution for murder, evidence held
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 700.

not to suggest the issue of provoking the dif.
Evidence held not to show an assault with ficulty on the part of accused.—Roberts v.
intent to murder.-Reyes v. State (Tex. Cr. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
App.) 215.

In a prosecution for murder, the evidence
$ 10. Trial.

held to warrant a charge with reference to self.
Under Kirby's Dig. &8 1765, 2387, held, on a

defense.—Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
prosecution for murder, that an instruction that Evidence on a prosecution for murder held to
matters of mitigation must be shown by a require the submission to the jury of the issue
preponderance of the evidence was erroneous.- of murder in the second degree.—Johnson v.
Cogburn v. State (Ark.) 822.

State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.
In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction Evidence on prosecution for assault with in-
that deceased had a right to draw his gun, tent to murder held to require a charge that,
and if defendant pressed him he would have a if defendant's friend, in whose behalf defend-
right to use it, held proper.-Williams v. United ant interfered, had no intention of provoking
States (Ind. T.) 334.

difficulty, and did no act to bring it on, his
*On a trial for homicide, an instruction held friend's right of self-defense was complete.-
to give defendant the same right to defend his Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
brother as himself.—McQueen v. Commonwealth Defendant, on prosecution for assault with
(Ky.) 1047.

intent to murder, held not entitled to a charge
On a trial for voluntary manslaughter, the on self-defense, but to a charge confined to af-
failure to charge with respect to defendant's firmance of his right to interfere in behalf of
testimony held reversible error.-French

his friend.—Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1070.

Evidence on prosecution for assault with in-
Where an indictment only charged murder tent to murder held to justify charge on pro-
in the second degree, the court was not called voking difficulty.-Garza v. State (Tex. Cr.
on to charge on murder in the first degree.-

App.) 231.
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge held
In homicide, charge held a correct statement not erroneous as limiting defendant's right of
of law of provoking the difficulty.—State v. self-defense.—Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In homicide, charge on provocation of diffi- In a prosecution for murder, an instruction
culty buld not open to the objection of predicat- that, when danger of death or serious bodily
ing a "felonious intent upon condition."-State injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it,
v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

was correct, and not erroneous as limiting de-
In homicide, instructions on self-defense and fendant's right to act on apparent danger. -
on provoking the difficulty held not in conflict. Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In a prosecution for murder, an instruction
In homicide, instruction on manslaughter, that, when danger of death or serious bodily
hypothesized on a petty difficulty instigated by injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it,
defendant and a subsequent killing in selt held applicable.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr.
defense, held properly refused.-State v. Bailey

App.) 238.
(Mo. Sup.) 733.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge on
culty,” as used in the law of homicide, are self-|(Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
The terms "self-defense" and "bring on dimi- self-defense held not erroneous as eliminating

the appearance of danger.-Coleman v. State
explanatory, and need not be specifically defin-
ed in instructions.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) In a prosecution for murder, an instruction

as to threats held not erroneous.—Coleman v.
On prosecution for homicide, defendant hela State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
entitled to have Pen. Code, art. 717, relating On a prosecution for assault with intent to
to the means by which the homicide was com- murder, held the duty of the court to have in-
mitted, given in the charge.-Craiger v. State structed on a lesser degree of the offense.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 208.

Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239.
Defendant on prosecution for homicide held On a prosecution for assault with intent to
entitled to a charge the converse of one limit- murder, held that the court should have in-

• Point annotated. See syllabus.



« AnteriorContinuar »