« 이전계속 »
(E) Jurisdiction, Limitations, and Laches. Omar 10 (Mo.) Carrying loaded revolver on floor en 253 (Tex.civ.App.) Will held properly proof automobile held “concealment” within stat-bated by district clerk in 1874.-Clements y, ute.--State v. Renard, 273 S. W. 1058.
Texas Co., 273 S. W. 993. ell(1) (Mo.) State deputy beverage inspector not entitled to carry concealed weapon;
(I) Hearing or Trial. "officer."-State v. Hogan, 273 S. W. 1060.
324 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of testamw 13 (Mo.) Exclusion of evidence, in prose- mentary incapacity sufficient for jury.-Moore cution for carrying concealed weapons, that ac v. Martin, 273 S. W. 961. cused had been shot at, not error.-State v. w330(1). (Tex.Civ.App.) Charge defining Hogan, 273 S. W. 1060.
"sound mind” held sufficiently comprehensive. Om 17 (1) (Mo.) No variance between evidence-Bell v. Blackwell, 273 S. W. 866. of carrying weapon on person and charge of carrying it concealed about person.-State v.
(K) Review. Renard, 273 S. W. 1057. www 17(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of what w359. (Tex.Civ.App.) Courts cannot qualify happened at accused's home on night of of
or limit statutory right of appeal.-Moore y. fense, and what happened after she left home, Martin, 273 S. W. 961. competent, in charge of carrying weapons.-planation in connection with submission of will
Om 400 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error, if any, in ex: Knoble v. State, 273 S. W. 594. Cw17 (5) (Mo.) Whether revolvers in pocket contest on special issue, held harmless.-Bell v. on back of automobile seat occupied by accused Blackwell, 273 S. W. 866. were concealed about his person held for jury. Em 400 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court will not presume -State v. Hogan. 273 S. W. 1060.
an improper use of evidence.-Moore v. MarCum 17(5) (Mo.) Whether revolvers hidden on
tin, 273 S. W. 961. seat between accused and another were carried by accusedconcealed about his person
(L) Fees and Costs. held for jury.-State v. Scanlan, 273 S. W. Ow405 (Tex.Civ.App.) Fee of guardian ad sit1062.
em for defending suit to avoid will properly Om 17 (6) (M0.) Evidence held to justify in- taxed against minor.-Moore v. Martin, 273 S. struction as to carrying concealed weapon pri- W. 961. or to entering automobile.-State v. Scanlan, 273 S. W. 1062.
(M) Operation and Effect. Instruction allowing finding of carrying wea Om 421 (Tex.Civ. App.) District clerk's order pon "upon" tthe person allowable under indict- reciting jurisdictional facts on probate of will ment for carrying weapons "about" the per- held conclusive against collateral attack.son.-Id.
Clements v. Texas Co., 273 S. W. 993. Omw 17(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge that accused Ancient orders for probate of wills construed could carry revolver for no other purpose than to uphold titles emanating thereunder.-Id. to deliver it to mother error.-Knoble v. State, 273 S. W. 591.
*(H) Estates in Trust and Powers. See Descent and Distribution; Executors and Om 674 (Mo.App.) Will held to create spendAdministrators.
thrift trust, though not declaring cestui's in
terest not subject to creditors.-Commerce II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. Trust Co. v. Bayles, 273 S. W. 759. On52(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden is on opponent to show testamentary incapacity.-Moore VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVIv. Martin, 273 S. W. 961.
SEES AND LEGATEES. ww53(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Deed to testator be
(D) Election, fore marriage competent on question of inca: 793 (Ark.) Widow's renunciation of will pacity, where be believed property so conveyed held not in compliance with statute, and hence was community property. -Moore v. Martin, ineffective.-Lucas v. Lacy, 273 S. W. 366. 273 S. W. 961.
(G) Debts of Testator and Incumbrances IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
on Property. (G) Revocation and Revival.
837 (Ark.) Widow as devisee in husband's 184(2) (Ark.) Instrument declaring inten
will held not bound to pay debt of estate out of tion not to will land to son held not codicil.
her estate or estate so devised.--Security Bank Newboles v. Newboles. 27:3 S. W. 1026.
& Trust Co. v. Costen, 273 S. W. 705. Omo 186 (Ark.) Purported revocation, failing to
Widow held entitled to enjoy portion of esrefer to or identify will. held not defective. tate devised and bequeathed to her by husband. Newboles v. Newboles, 273 S. W. 1026.
-Id. Instrument signed by another than testatrix
WITNESSES. held not good as revocation.-Id.
See Depositions; Evidence. V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND AN
II. COMPETENCY, NULMENT. (A) Probate and Revocation in General.
(A) Capacity and Qualifications in GenCw204 (Tex.Civ.App.). Act vesting district
Ca 48(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Codefendant, under clerk with probate authority in vacation held suspended sentence for same offense, not comvalid.-Clements v. Texas Co., 273 S. W. 993. petent to testify.-Majors v. State, 273 S. W.
267. (B) Actions to Establish or Determine Va
Cum 52(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Proof by third party lidity in General.
of declaration of wife to husband ordinarily On 225 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment not im- not inadmissible against husband.—Goforth v. peached for fraud where laches and lack of dil-State, 273 S. W. SIJ. igence in discovering fraud shown.-Warne v. Declarations of wife not privileged when husJackson, 273 S. W. 315.
band and wife coconspirators.-Id. C230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Wife not estopped from 53(5) (Ky.) In suit to recover for serycontesting will under circumstances not show- ices rendered to deceased, witness for estate ing election to stand by it.- Moore v. Martin, competent as to some matters.-Clark v. Hale, 273 S. W. 961.
1273 S. W. 39.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Serles & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons in IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CON
terested, for or against Representa. TRADICTION, AND CORROBORATION. tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title
(A) In General. or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent.
Omw 321 (Mo.App.) Party may not impeach his of lumber by decedent not rendered inadmissi- Schutte Lumber Co., 273 S. W. 213. Emo 140(6), (Ky.) Witness' testimony as to sale own witness, unless he shows that he has been
or entrapped.-Gallagher v. S. Z. ble because he was given small bequest.- 330(1) (Ark.) Cross-examination as to repWalker v. Bennett, 273 S. W. 518.
utation of accused in conducting dances and On 159 (9) (Ky.) In suit to recover for serv
drinking parties proper to test credibility.ices rendered to deceased, witness for estate competent as to some matters.-Clark v. Hale. Weakley v. State, 273 S. W. 374. 273 S. W. 39.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. w 181 (Mo.App.) Defendants not estopped to 337 (2) (Ky.) Admission of testimony as object to competency of claimant as a witness to accused's -bad reputation, after he had tesbecause not objecting in probate court.-Lang tified, proper.—Loving v. Commonwealth, 273 v. Wishart, 273 S. W. 768.
S. W. 56. Courts will not raise a waiver of incompe- Oma 337(2) (Ky.) Testimony of moral charactency of witness to testify as to transaction
ter of accused, who was witness for himself, with deceased person upon a mere pretext.-Id. competent.–Lake v. Commonwealth, 273 S. W.
511. (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Moral reputation of accused for period of Communications.
214 to 3 years prior to crime may be proved. @mw 190 (Tex.Cr.App.) Declarations of wife not -Id. privileged when husband and wife coconspira-em337 (5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment for feltors.-Goforth v. State, 273 S. W. 845.
ony or offense imputing moral turpitude aden 193 (Tex.Cr.App.) Proof by third party of missible to affect accused's credibility as witdeclaration of wife to husband ordinarily not pess.-Scogin v. State, 273 S. W. 575. inadmissible against husband.-Goforth v. 337 (5) (Tex.Cr. App.) Permitting prosecuState, 273 S. W. 815.
tion to interrogate accused's witness as to othCw212 (Ark.) Testimony of defendant's fam- er indictments against accused held not reversiily physicians as to his mental condition, not ble error.-Littlejohn v. State, 273 S. W. 864. obtained from any information received for cm337(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Questioning accused purpose of treating defendant, held properly ad as witness, as to whether he was not under inmitted.-Burris v. State, 273 S. W. 19.
dictment for selling whisky in two other cases,
and if he had not been convicted in four liquor III. EXAMINATION.
cases, held not error.--Littlejohn v. State, 273
S. W. 861. (A) Taking Testimony in General.
345(!) (Ark.) Witness may be discredited en 240(6) (Ky.) Question held properly ex
by showing that he was formerly accused of cluded, as leading.–Cox y. Commonwealth, 273 bell v. State, 273 S. W. 1035.
particular crime charged to defendant.-CampS. W. 515.
no 255(9) (Ark.) Permitting reading of testi-Cm 349 (Ky.) Exclusion of question as to how mony taken before grand jury to refresh mem
much plaintiff was engaged in liquor business ory of witnesses held proper, where they ad- | w. 439.
hold not erroneous.-Walker v. Rogers, 273 S. mitted testimony was true.-Crafford v. State,
w350 (Ky.) Cross-examination to how 273 S. W. 13.
many times plaintiff had been fined for selling
whisky held properly excluded.--Walker v. Rog(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina
ers, 273 S. W. 439. tion.
C 360 (Ky.) Refusal of defendant's rebuttal 266 (Mo.App.) No abuse of discretion in evidence to show good character held erroneallowing plaintiff to cross-examine his hostile ous.-Barker v. Commonwealth, 273 S. W. 503. witness.-Semper v. American Press, 273 S. W. Com 361(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Admission of testi1 86.
mony, showing good reputation of prosecuting Com 267 (Mo.App.) Trial court may not too witness for truth and veracity, held not error. narrowly restrict cross-examination.-Gallagher -Littlejohn v. State, 273 S. W. 864. v. S. Z. Schutte Lumber Co., 273 S. W. 213. On 270(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal to permit ac
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness. cused to interrogate witness as to witness' Com 366 (Ark.) Question whether state witness brother being charged with violations of liquor had been charged with same robbery competent law held not error.-Littlejohn v. State, 273 s. to show bias.-Campbell v. State, 273 S. W. W. $61.
1035. C274(1) (Ky.) Commonwealth may attack cm372(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Cross-examination defendant's reputation, where he has offered of accused's brother, as to whether they were proof thereof, and may cross-examine defend- not all mad at deceased's family, not improper. ant's witnesses, to test memory and extent of - Emmons v. State. 273 S. W. 253. information.-Cox v. Commonwealth, 273 S. 376 (Tex.Civ.App.) Permitting witness, W. 515.
whose bias plaintiff attempted to show, to ex274(2) (Ark.) Cross-examination as to ac- plain on cross-examination her conduct in dicused's general reputation for "peace and quie- recting plaintiff to leave her premises, hold not tude"
proper; "public peace.”– Weakley error.—Joseph v. Puryear, 273 S. W. 374. State, 273 S. W. 374. Cw27712) (Tex.Cr. App.) Cross-examination of (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. accused as to why she did not stop readily 379(3) (Ky.) Exclusion of written statewhen officer tried to stop her improper under ment inconsistent with testimony, though mereshowing.-Knoble v. State, 273 S. W. 594. ly expressing opinion, held error.-Rockport C-283 (Ark.) Refusal to allow defense to re Coal Co. v. Barnard, 273 S. W. 533. call witness for cross-examination, after all Cm 383 (Tex.Cr. App.) Hearsay testimony, ofevidence had been taken and jury partially in- fered for impeachinent purposes, held properly structed, held not error.-Murphy v. State, 273 excluded as immaterial.-Brown v. State, 273 S. W. 718.
S. W. 263. C287(3) (Tex.Cr. App.) Re-examination to show prosecuting witness took whisky to get (E) Contradiction and Corroboration ,ot in with defendant held not error, where cross
Witness, examination showed witness took such whisky Cam 405(1) (Ark.) Evidence that company's with him.-Nowells y. State, 273 S. W. 561. employee attempted to secure admission that
witness fastened foreign wire to high-tension “Fundamental error."-Bristol v. Chas. F. Nowire held inadmissible to impeach witness. ble Oil & Gas Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. Pine Bluff Co. v. Bobbitt, 273 S. W. 1.
W. 946. ww405(1) (Ark.) Question as to statement by “General denial.”-Franklin Bank v. Internadeceased that another ought to whip defend tional Hospital Equipment Co. (Mo. App.) ant was not a threat of violence on deceased's 273 S. W. 197. part, and hence not a matter on which witness | “General law."-Farelly Lake Levee Dist. v. could be contradicted.-Burris v. State, 273 S. Iludson (Ark.) 273 S. W. 711. W. 19.
"General statute."-McLaughlin v. Ford (Ark.) Cw406 (Ky.) Rebuttal evidence showing do 273 S. W. 707. mestic troubles of accused, who was witness in "Hootch."-State v. Hull (Mo.) 273 S. W. 1039. his own behalf, held competent.-Lake v. Com- "Implied contracts in fact.”-Farmers' State monwealth, 273 S. W. 511.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Gorman Home Refinww406 (Ky.) Question to defendant, as to ery (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 694. whether he made a certain statement, proper- "Implied contracts in law.”-Farmers' State ly excluded, where statement not in language Bank & Trust Co. v. Gorman Home Refintestified to.-Cox v. Commonwealth, 273 S. W. ery (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 694. 515.
“Instructions."--Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. ww406 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held admissi Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 221. ble to discredit testimony of beneficiary that he “Intent."-First Nat. Bank v. Kibble (Mo. had not heard of insured for 7 years.-Thet App.) 273 S. W. 148. ford v. Modern Woodmen of America, 273 S. Interest."--Henderson v. Chesley (Tex. Civ. W. 666.
App.) 273 S. W. 299.
"Interest in land."-Sibley v. Pickens (Tex. WORDS AND PHRASES.
Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 897.
"Interstate commerce."'-McCaskey Register "About."--State v. Scanlan (Mo.) 273 S. W.
Co. v. Mann (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 1062.
1113. "Admiralty.”—Lee v. Licking Valley Coal Dig- “Involuntary manslaughter.”-Crafford v. State
(Ark.) 273 S. W. 13. ger Co. (Ky.) 273 S. W. 542. "Advancement." - Thompson v. Latimer (Ky.) "Joint owners."-Henderson v. Chesley (Tex. 273 S. W. 65.
Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 299. *Adverse possession."-Bemrod Wright
“Landlord and tenant relation."--Cry v. J. W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 938.
Bass Hardware (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. "And "-Board of Common Councilmen of City
347. of Frankfort v. Morris (Ky.) 273 S. W. "Machine."-Lumatz v. American Car & Foun413.
dry Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 1089. “And interest."-Rosenberg v. Greenstone (Mo. “Maintain."-St. Louis, Southwestern Ry. Co. Anp.) 273 S. W. 133.
of Texas v. Davy Burnt Clay Ballast Co. "Apparent authority in an agent"-Ozark Mut.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 630. Life Ass'n v. Dillard (Ark.) 273 S. W. 378. ] “Maritime."--Lee v. Licking Valley Coal Dig"Autheutication."- Bell V. Thomsen
ger Co. (Ky.) 273 S. W. 512.
(Tex. Com. App.) 273 S. W. 1109.
"Maritime cause.”—Lee v. Licking Valley Coal “Authority."--Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. “Market value.:: Electric Products Co. v. St.
Digger Co. (Ky.) 273 S. W. 542. Co. (Mo App.) 273 S. W. 221. “Bawdy house."--Claiborne v. State (Tex. Cr
Louis Theater Supply Co. (Mo. App.) 27.3 App.) 273 S. W. 260; Hardaman v. State “Material."-Wittels Loan & Mercantile Co. v.
S. W. 135. (Tex. Cr. App.) 273 S. W. 584. "Bill of exchange "-Bush v. Gholson (Tex.
American Cent. Ins. Co. (Mo.) 273 S. W.
1084. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 703. “Bill of interpleader."-Continental Nat. Bank "Ministerial act."-Kaufman County v. Gaston of Fort Worth v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) "Near."-Clements v. Texas Co. (Tex. Civ.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 273. 273 S. W. 657. “Bona fide purchaser."'--Whitaker v. Davidson "Negligence."-D'Wolf v. Stix-Baer & Fuller
App.) 273 S. W. 993. (Ky.) 273 S. W. 485.
Dry Goods Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 172; "Casing-head gas."-Livingston Oil Corporation
Ray v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. (Mo. v. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W.
App.) 273 S. W. 1078. 903.
"Numbness."-Rosenzweig v. Wells (Mo.) 273 "Civil action."-Janin v. Logan (Ky.) 273 S.
S. W. 1071. W. 531.
"Officer."-State v. Hogan (Mo.) 273 S. W. "Concealment.”-State v. Renard (Mo.) 273 S.
1060. W. 1058.
“Oil."-Livingston Oil Corporation v. Waggon"Conversion.”—Livingston Oil Corporation v. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 903. “Or." --State v. Combs (Mo.) 273 S. W. 1037.
er (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 903. “Coram nobis.”—Schneider v. Schneider (Mo. “Party." --State ex rel. Cornelius v. McClanaApp.) 273 S. W. 1081.
han (Mo.) 273 S. W. 1059. "Cropper."-Cry v. J. W. Bass Hardware (Tex. “Peace and quietude."—Weakley v. State Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 347.
(Ark.) 273 S. W. 374. “Culpable negligence."-State v. Winkler (Mo.) “Personal property.”—Garcia v. State (Tex. 273 S. W. 1010.
Cr. App.) 273 S. W. 860. “Definite and permanent source."--Hoefs v. "Plaintiff _McFadin v. Simms (Mo.) 273 S. Short (Tex.) 273 S. W. 785.
W. 1050. “Deposit in court."-Mannion v. John Hancock “Private residence.”—Luttrell v. State (Tex. Viut. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W.
Cr. App.) 273 S. W. 597. 201.
"Process." -Clements v. Texas Co. (Tex. Civ. "Ea sement."-Rogers v. Hussion (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 993. App.) 273 S. W. 969.
"Property.”—Garcia v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) “Ex parte proceeding."-Janin v. Logan (Ky.) 273 S. W. 860. 273 S. W. 531.
"Proximate cause."—Wengert v. Lyons (Mo. "Express contracts.”-Farmers' State Bank & App.) 273 S. W. 143.
Trust Co. v. Gorman Home Refinery (Tex. “Public peace.” Weakley v. State (Ark.) 273 Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 694.
S. W. 374. “Fellow servant." - Evans v Southern Wheel “Purpose.”-First Nat. Bank v. Kibble (Mo. Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 749.
App.) 273 S. W. 148. “Fraud."'-Stetien v. Stabl (Mo. App.) 273 s. “Realty.”-Sibley v. Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.) W. 118.
273 S. W. 897.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
ern R. Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 169.
(Ky.) 273 S. W. 489.
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 993.
Co. (Mo. App.) 273 S. W. 749.
Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 1006.
273 S. W. 785.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
WRIT OF ERROR.
See Appeal and Error.
Noble Oil & Gas Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 nishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction;