« 이전계속 »
Om 175 (Mo.App.) Defendant in unlawful de- Omw 321 (Tex.Cr. App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. tainer held not rendered competent to testify 1911, art. 815, the state cannot impeach its witto conversation wherein plaintiffs' deceased pred- ness who failed to remember and testify to facts ecessor had verbally rented the premises either stated at the coroner's inquest as to which it to him or to such predecessor's lessee, because was sought to refresh the witness' memory.decedent's attorney, still living and testifying Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 113. for plaintiff, was present at the conference.- Onw330 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for slanMcCracken v. Schuster, 179 S. W. 757.
der for asserting sexual relations, held proper Defendant could testify where the plaintiffs to exclude a question to prosecuting witness on deceased predecessor's evidence in another suit cross-examination whether she would submit to as to the conversation as to which defendant medical examination.-Robison v. State, 179 S. testified was preserved and introduced at the W. 1157. trial, though defendant himself introduced the preserved evidence.-Id.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged dling, previous similar charges held admissible
C337 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for swin
in evidence to impeach the credibility of accused em 198 (Ky.) While an attorney cannot testify as a witness.-Arnold v. State, 179 S. W. 1183. concerning communications between himself and am 345 (Ky.) Impeachment
of witness by his client, an attorney who is a mining expert showing his mere arrest on a warrant charging is competent, in an action involving breach of false swearing held improper, under Civ. Code a mining contract, to testify as to the number of Prac. $ 597. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Vantons of coal in an acre.—Trosper Coal Co. v.
over, 179 S. W. 43. Rader, 179 S. W. 1023.
Om 345 (Ky.) Conviction of burning insured Ouw 208 (Mo.App.) In action against street rail-property is admissible to impeach the credibili
. road for personal injury, refusal to allow dety of a plaintiff suing on an insurance policy. fendant's regular physician, who examined plain- Liverpool & London & Globe
- Ins. Co. v.
. tiff's injury while attempting to settle her claim, Wright, 179 S. W. 49. to disclose his knowledge of such injury, held proper.- Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W. 735.
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness, em 219 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff, who offered here 369 (Tex.Cr.App.) To impeach a witness for own physician to testify to the results of an defendant in seduction, the state may show examination, and who afterwards permitted witness prescribed for prosecutrix to produce an examination by another physician, held to have abortion.-McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. have waived her right to exclude testimony of latter physician, as privileged under Rev. St. Cm 376 Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused sought 1909, 6362.- Michaels v. Harvey, 179 s. w. to show that a state's witness was taking an 735.
active interest in the prosecution, the court
could permit the state to show the reason of III. EXAMINATION.
the witness' interest.-Word v. State, 179 S.
W. 1175. (A) Taking Testimony in General. Em 255 (Tex.Cr.App.) The memory of a wit- (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. ness may be refreshed by propounding questions On 379 (Ky.) A witness may properly be imto her and exhibiting to her her testimony given peached by proof of bis statements out of court at the coroner's inquest.Taylor v. State, 179 inconsistent with his testimony:-Liverpool & S. W. 113.
London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Wright, 179 S.
W. 49. (B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina- 396 (Tex.Civ. App.) Evidence of plaintiff as tion.
to circumstances surrounding the giving of a ww269 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant's wife statement and as to its falsity was admissible admitted adultery with deceased, which had to rebut the statement given to contradict plainbeen set up as provocation, the state could tiff's testimony.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. prove her contradictory statements to the coun- Winkler, 179 Š. W. 691. ty attorney after the homicide, but could not prove a material fact on a different branch of (E) Contradiction and Corroboration of the case as to which she did not testify in
Witness. chief.-Mitchell v. State, 179 S. W. 116. Omm 405 (Ky.) Where, in action on note for Oun 278 (Ark.) Admission of question on cross- borrowed money, defendant denied ever borrowexamination of one jointly indicted with accused ing money from plaintiff, check claimed to repas to whether his brother had not been charged resent a different loan held competent to imwith killing and burning a woman held error.- peach defendant.--Shelby V. Grabble, 179 S. Counts v. State, 179 S. W. 662.
W. 1. Cum 280 (Ky.) In an action for slander, a ques. Onm414 Tex.Civ.App.) Report of defendant tion on cross-examination calling for the rela- railway's investigator on condition of a car tions between plaintiff and the witness held in- coupling in operating which plaintiff was inadmissible as framed.-Deitchman v. Bowles, jured is not admissible to corroborate the tes179 S. W. 249.
timony of the investigator, unless made before ww286 (Tex.Cr.App.) Question on redirect ex- motive for concealing defects arose.—Pecos & amination of witness, who claimed that he, and N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691. not accused, assaulted the prosecuting witness, as to whether he had ever testified on oath about this, held immaterial, in view of his
WORDS AND PHRASES. cross-examination.-Vinson v. State, 179 S. W. 574.
(Ky.) 179 S. W. 458; Derinan v. State (Tex. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 120; Bagley v. Same, CONTRADICTION, AND COR
“Adequate cause."-Völlintine V. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 108. (A) In General.
“Adverse possession."—Wichita Valley Ry. Co. C311 (Ark.) A credible person is one having v. Somerville (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 671. capacity to testify on given subject and worthy "Agistment.”-Patchen-Wilkes Stock Farm Co. of belief, and lack of knowledge on the subject v. Walton (Ky.) 179 S. W. 823. of particular inquiry renders witness not credi- “Appurtenance.”—Kentucky Distilleries & ble in reference thereto.-Dewein v. State, 179 Warehouse Co. v. Warwick Co. (Ky.) 179 S.
“Assets.”-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. / "Liable to forfeiture."-Jennings v. National Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375.
American (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 789. "Chattel." --Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. "Lookout ahead.”-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375.
Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tenn.) '179 S. W. 641. “Chose in action."-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. 0. “Malicious.”—Hutton v. Watters (Tenn.) 179 S. & T. P. Ry. Co. Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375.
W. 134. “Citizen.”-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State | “Marketable title.”—Mays v. Blair (Ark.) 179 (Ark.) 179 S. W. 342.
S. W. 331. “C. 0. D.”—Danciger v. American Express Co. “Nonexclusive power of appointment."-Barret's (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 797.
Ex'r v. Barret (Ky.) 179 S. W. 396. “Common carrier.”—City of Memphis v. State "Officer.”—Nall v. Kelley (Ark.) 179 S. W. 486. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 631.
“Ordinary care.”—McWilliams v. Kentucky “Congregate.”—Halliday v. State (Ark.) 179 S. Heating Co. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 24. W. 1004.
"Parol constructive trust."-Holtzclaw v. Wells “Conversion."-State v. Wilcox (Mo.) 179 S. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 193. W. 479.
"Passenger."-Kentucky Highlands R. Co. v. “Creation of new corporation.”—Avery Bldg. Creal (Ky.) 179 S. W. 417.
Ass'n v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 179 S. W. 39. “Pending." —Daniel v. Lane (Tex. Civ. App.) “Credible."--Dewein v. State (Ark.) 179 S. W. 179 S. W. 906. 346.
"Physician.”—Hyroop v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) “Debt.”-Francis v. Francis (Mo. App.) 179 S. 179 S. W. 878. W. 975.
"Place."-Standard Knitting Mills v. Hickman "De facto officer.”—Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 385.
Ry. Co. v. Cundiff (Ky.) 179 S. W. 615. “Practicing medicine.”-Hyroop v. State (Tex. "De jure officer.”-Hogan v. Hamilton County Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 878. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 128.
“Prejudicial.”—Coman v. Baker (Tex. Civ. App.) “Delinquent child.”-Talbotty. Commonwealth 179 S. W. 937. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 621.
"Private residence."-Fondren v. State Tex. "Dividends."-Smith v. Southern Foundry Co. Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 1170; Garcia v. Same, (Ky.) 179 S. W. 205.
Id. 1172 "Dying without lawful heirs.”—Jewell v. White "Proclamation.”—Dickinson v. Page (Ark.) 179 (Ky.) 179 S. W. 212.
S. W. 1004. “Emblements."-Turner v. Turner (Tenn.) 179 "Property or any interest therein."-McDaniel S. W. 132.
v. Herrn (Ark.) 179 S. W. 337. “Employment.”—Clark v. Dunham (Mo. App.) “Railroad.”—Hellriegel v. Dunham (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 795.
179 S. W. 763. “Entry of judgment.”—Moore v. Toyah Valley “Reasonably safe.”-Sanford-Day Iron Works Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550.
v. Moore (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 373. “Estate."--McDaniel v. Herrn (Ark.) 179 S. w. "Rendition of judgment.”-Moore v. Toyah Val
337; Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. ley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550. Co. (Tenn.) Id. 375.
"Representation.”-American Nat. Ins. Co. v. “Estoppel.”—Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton Anderson Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 66. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 36.
“Reputable."-Dewein v. State (Ark.) 179 S. "Exclusive power of appointment."-Barret's W. 346. Ex'r v. Barret (Ky.) 179 S. W. 396.
"Rob."-Deitchman v. Bowles (Ky.) 179 S. W. "Exhibits."-Grice v. Cooley (Tex. Civ. App.) . "
249. 179 S. W. 1098.
“Solicitor."-Lowenthal v. Underdown Tenn.) "Expeditiously as possible.”—Louis Werner 179 S. W. 129.
Sawmill Co. v. Sessoms (Ark.) 179 S. W. 185. "Street."-Eickhoff v. City of Argenta (Ark.) “Fellow servant." - Consolidated Coal Co. v. 179 S. W. 367. Baldridge (Ky.) 179 S. W. 18.
"Tax."-Vogt v. City of Oakdale (Ky.) 179 S. "Final judgment." -Moore v. Toyah Valley Irr. W. 1037.
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550; Fin- "Tenant.”—Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) nigan-Brown Co. v. Escobar, id. 1127.
179 S. W. 711. "Franchise.”-City of Princeton v. Princeton “Traveler.”—Taylor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) Electric Light & Power Co. (Ky.) 179 S. W.
179 S. W. 1161. 1074.
"Use of patents."-Hudson Engineering Co. v. "Frequent.”-Halliday V. State (Ark.) 179 S.
Shaw (Ky.) 179 S. W. 1083. W. 1004.
"Vested remainder.”—Caples v. Ward (Tex.)
( “Goods and chattels.”-Sharp v: Cincinnati, N. «Warranty.* --American Nat. Ins. Co. v. An
179 S. W. 856. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375.
“ “Goods, chattels, or assets or any estate, real or
derson (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 66. personal."--Sharp v. Cincinnati, n. 6. & T. "While acting under
assured's instructions.” — P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375.
Seay v. Georgia Life Ins. Co. (Tenn.) 179 "Imply." --State v. Wilcox (Mo.) 179 S. W. 479.
S. W. 312. "Institution of purely public charity.”—Mason County v. Hayswood Hospital of Maysville
WORK AND LABOR. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 1050.
See Executors and Administrators, 206; "Interest."--Smith v. Southern Foundry Co. Mechanics' Liens.
(Ky.) 179 S. W. 205. “Jitneys.” —City of Memphis v. State (Tenn.)
WORKHOUSES. 179 S. W. 631. "Judgment."--Moore v. Toyah Valley Irr. Co. See Prisons, Om 10.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550. "Judgment of nonsuit." - Woods v. Missouri
WRITS. Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 727.
Execution : “Jurisdictional defect." - Édge v. Allen (Ky.)
( Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus; Ne 179 S. W. 212. “Lease.”—Patchen-Wilkes Stock Farm Co. v.
Exeat; Process; Prohibition; Replevin ; SeWalton (Ky.) 179 S. W. 823.
questration. “Lessee.”—Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 179
error, see Appeal and Error. S. W. 711. “Liability.”—Jennings V. National American
X-RAY. (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 789.
See Evidence, Om 359.