Statute of; Guaranty; Husband and Wife, 182(1) (Ark.) Where a Chamber of Com85; Indemnity; Insane Persons, 74, merce solicits subscriptions from prospective al75; Interest; Landlord and Tenant; Liens; lottees of lands donated by others to promote Limitation of Actions, 21; Logs and Log- the welfare of the community, the separate conging, 3, 8; Mechanics' Liens; Mortgages; tracts of the respective subscribers constitute a Partnership; Payment; Reformation of In- joint contract on their part.-Byington v. Little struments; Release; Sales; Specific Per- Rock Chamber of Commerce, 201 S. W. 122. formance; Stipulations; Subrogation; Telegraphs and Telephones; United States, 67; Use and Occupation; Work and Labor. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials in General. 10(4) (Mo.App.) Contract signed by both seller and buyer reciting sale of feed to buyer, and containing formula for feed and minute shipping directions, is not lacking in mutuality, though not reciting in express words that buyer agreed to accept and pay for the feed.-Heffernan v. Neumond, 201 S. W. 645. Where buyer, when informed of assignment of contract for sale of feed, replied to assignees that he would look to them for delivery, and that portion of feed delivered was accepted and paid for, contract is not bad for want of mutuality, though it did not in specific terms obligate buyer to accept and pay for feed sold.-Id. 10(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where buyer promises to purchase certain amount of corporate stock at certain price per share, and seller furnishes such amount under agreement, contract is not invalid for lack of mutuality, on ground that at time of making offer seller did not bind himself to furnish said amount of stock. International Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 201 S. W. 1088. (F) Legality of Object and of Consideration. 138(1) (Ky.) In a popularity contest, where company sells dealer the prizes and plans, with book of instructions telling that fictitious votes should be given candidates to keep up interest, the transaction is vicious, and the court will not help either the contest company or the dealer. Commercial Sec. Co. v. Archer, 201 S. W. 479. II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 147(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) To ascertain the intention of the parties, the contract alone is to be considered in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake.-Crawford v. El Paso Land Improvement Co., 201 S. W. 233. 153 (Tenn.) Where a contract may fairly be construed not to violate the law, court should incline to give it that construction, and thus maintain its validity.-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co., 201 S. W. 154. 153 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where contract is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, court will adopt that construction which will prevent forfeiture.—Adams v. Fidelity Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 1034. (B) Parties. 177 (Mo.App.) Where one person deposited money in bank, to be paid over to another when latter should complete ditches according to specifications, reference, in receipt given by bank, to such other person's contract with landowners to construct ditches, did not make depositor party to contract or adopter thereof.-Youngs v. People's Sav. Bank, 201 S. W. 632. (D) Place and Time. 212(1) (Mo.App.) Where one person deposited money with bank, to be paid over to another when latter should complete ditches according to specifications, such other had reasonable time in which to finish ditches, which expired before six years.-Youngs v. People's Sav. Bank, 201 S. W. 632. (F) Compensation. 228 (Mo.App.) Where one person deposited money with bank to be paid to another on forth in written receipt given, such other had completion of ditches, specifications being set no claim to money unless ditches were completed according to specifications.-Youngs v. People's Sav. Bank, 201 S. W. 632. V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. scription contract for the price of lands to be 279(1) (Ark.) A suit to recover on a suballotted defendant, held to present a complete cause of action when plaintiff offered to perform, although contract was too indefinite to require specific performance if treated as contract for sale of land.-Byington v. Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, 201 S. W. 122. 280(1) (Tenn.) Under contract for construction of logging road to be put in general operation by June 1, 1913, road half tied on the straight parts thereof, sufficient for construction trains and for any traffic offered by logging company, held constructed within meaning of contract.-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co., 201 S. W. 154. Contract to construct logging road and place it in operation, not expressly requiring the railroad contractor to purchase rolling stock, held complied with, though contractor depended upon its connecting carriers for its freight car supplies.-Id. 300 (1) (Tenn.) Under contract to construct logging road by a certain date, "unless prevented by weather conditions or other causes beyond its control," unanticipated trouble and delay in a cut by reason of a peculiar mud or clay held to entitle contractor to an extension of 30 days.-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co., 201 S. W. 154. 313 (2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where a contract is actually being performed, mere notice of intention to breach it is not itself a breach.Turner-Cummings Hardwood Co. v. Phillip A. Ryan Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 431. VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. 328 (1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Gross negligence in seller's mistake in making amount of his draft on buyer too small is no defense to action on buyer's promise to make good mistake.-International Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 201 S. W. 1088. 337(2) (Ark.) Allegations that contractor, clearing right of way, threw logs on adjoining lands, causing plaintiff to pay damages, was demurrable, in not stating where contractor was supposed to place logs.-Northern Const. Co. v. Johnson, 201 S. W. 510. CONTRADICTION. See Witnesses, 405. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Negligence, ~66-83. CONVERSION. See Trover and Conversion. CONVEYANCES. been redeemed and retired by company in its settlement with certain preferred stockholders. -F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Hazel, 201 S. W. 336. 320 (2) (Ark.) Where the same officers See Assignments; Chattel Mortgages; Deeds; whom plaintiff stockholders alleged were negExecution, 307; Fraudulent Conveyanc-ligent, continued in control, plaintiffs could sue es; Mortgages; Vendor and Purchaser, to recover moneys lost by such negligence with158. out first demanding that the bank bring the suit. -Magale v. Fomby, 201 S. W. 278. CORAM NOBIS. VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND LIABILITIES. (B) Representation of Corporation by Of. ficers and Agents. 401 (Ky.) In making settlement of differences between preferred stockholders and corporation, and also differences between stockholders and himself, president of corporation could not represent both himself and corporation.-F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Hazel, 201 S. W. 336. 429 (Ark.) A general rental agent of a corporation with authority to rent the corporation's lands had the apparent authority to fix the terms of rental contracts, and those who dealt with him were not bound to take notice of specific instructions given him to make only crop-sharing leases.-Three States Lumber Co. v. Moore, 201 S. W. 508. 432(4) (Mo.) Instrument signed by corporate officers and attested by corporate seal officers raises presumption that acted within their authority.-Coleman V. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 544. (A) Nature and Amount of Capital and ordinarily Shares. 68 (Ky.) Division of stock into common and preferred, being authorized by Ky. St. §432(12) (Mo.) Document signed by presi564, held that, as against corporation and owners of common stock, matured redeemable preferred stock of grocery company was merely indebtedness against company, which it was bound to redeem, despite section 544.-F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Hazel, 201 S. W. 336.433(2) (Mo.) The facts upon which ratifica to VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS. (B) Authority and Functions. 298(1) (Mo.) Separate consent of directors of corporate beneficiary of life policy change of beneficiaries is not equivalent to formal action of board.-Coleman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 544. (C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to Corporation and Its Members. 314(2) (Ky.) Participation of manager of corporation with president in compromise with preferred stockholders, and execution by him of corporation's note to bank for amount of money, had no binding force upon corporation, where, in settlement in which president of corporation was interested, manager was beneficially interested with him adversely to corporation.-F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Hazel, 201 S. W. 336. dent and secretary and attested by seal of corporate beneficiary of life policy is not conclusive evidence of officers' power to execute instrument. -Coleman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 544. tion by a corporation of the acts of its officers are based must be conclusively established, in order to permit the court to declare as a matter of law that there was a ratification.-Coleman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 544. XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 666 (Tenn.) Under Thompson's Shannon's Code, $$ 4515, 4539-4541, 5211, and Acts 1859-60. c. 89, embodied in Thompson's Shannon's Code, § 4542, and sections 2549, 4516, 4543-4546, foreign corporation may be served by attaching its property in any county in state, though directors and officers reside in another county. Brewer v. De Camp Glass Casket Co., 201 S. W. 145. COSTS. See Appeal and Error, 389, 1226; Judgment, 59. OF RIGHT IN GENERAL. Corporation's settlement with preferred stockholders is binding upon corporation and I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND EXTENT president as settlement of differences with stockholders and redemption by corporation of matured preferred stock, but is without force as between corporation and president, who, in settlement, represented hostile interests of corporation and himself.-Id. 316(1) (Ky.) Where corporation's settlement with preferred stockholders holding matured stock, effected by company's president, was mutually advantageous to corporation and president, in adjustment of their differences growing out of settlement, it is equitable that each should contribute in proportion to benefits received.-F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Hazel, 201 S. W. 336. 319(7) (Ky.) In suit between corporation and former president for settlement, evidence held to show that $10,000 of preferred stock reissued to president for his common stock had 13 (Ark.) The rule that the chancellor has a discretion to impose costs according to equities does not apply where one party has equities superior to the other, and in such case the chancellor has no discretion.-Fry v. White, 201 S. W. 1105. 32(1) (Ky.) In view of Ky. St. §§ 1743, 2273, 2274, and 4244, Ky. St. § 2271, making the successful party primarily liable for jury fees, is consistent with section 2260, making losing party ultimately liable.-Louisville Ry. Co. v. Dugan, 201 S. W. 324. In view of Ky. St. § 4244, the clause in Ky. St. § 2271, providing that a jury fee shall be paid to the clerk by the successful party before execution shall issue on the judgment does not relieve the successful party of paying the same, though he failed to issue execution.-Id. at K.-State ex rel. Chick v. Davis, 201 S. W. 529. (D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, Opinions, and Records. 90(6) (Tenn.) An unreported opinion affirming an erroneous decision of chancellor without opinion will not be followed under rule of stare decisis.-Kobbe v. Harriman Land Co., 201 S. W. 762. 91(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) The Court of Civil Appeals is bound to follow the latest ruling of the Supreme Court upon the same proposition.-Camp v. Gourley, 201 S. W. 671. 95(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court of Civil Appeals of Texas is not at liberty to place interpretation upon laws of New Mexico different from that adopted by courts of that state.-Clay v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 1072. Where Legislature of another state has carried forward in every compilation of laws since its original enactment a section of an act, and subsequent acts relied on as repealing it were all in force and before Supreme Court of other state when it decided case against repeal, section is still in force.-Id. IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFE RIOR JURISDICTION. 169(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) County court has no jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction, except where amount in controversy exceeds $200, and does not exceed $1,000, in value, exclusive of interest.-Luhning v. Scott, 201 S. W. 663. 170 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where petition is doubtful as to when interest sought is to begin, it will be construed to begin when the judgment was rendered, where, if it began before such time, the court would not have had jurisdiction on account of amount involved.— Magnolia Cotton Oil Co. v. Martin, 201 S. W. 190. 170 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition in suit on notes and for foreclosure of chattel mortgage disclosing sum sued for is less than $200, and containing no allegation of value of mortgaged property, does not affirmatively allege facts showing county court has jurisdiction.-Watts v. Stewart, 201 S. W. 1061. V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDIC TION. I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE 202(2) (Mo.App.) Though case arises in OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. probate court, when defendant does file answer, it should contain all defenses relied on.-Sutton v. Libby, 201 S. W. 615. (Tex.Cr.App.) It is the court's duty to observe, and not disregard, statutory provisions. -Dodd v. State, 201 S. W. 1014. 8 (Mo.) Kansas Reciprocal Demurrage Act (Gen. St. Kan. 1909, §§ 7201-7203), subjecting railroad to penalty to shipper for delay in furnishing cars ordered, is not penal in sense forbidding enforcement in Missouri.-Coryell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 77. 33 (Mo.) All facts necessary to confer jurisdiction and make valid an act of the county court when acting in its judicial capacity must affirmatively appear upon the face of its record. State, on Inf. of Killam, v. Colbert, 201 S. W. 52. II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZA- GENERAL. (B) Terms, Vacations, Place and Time of Holding Court, Courthouses, and Accommodations. 67 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $$ 4205, 4214, 4218-4220, 4226, 4230, 4231, Jackson county criminal court may be held at K. and I. at the same time; and terms at the two places are not terms of the same court in such sense that arrival of time for terms at I. automatically terminates next preceding term 207(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In view of orders of county court, for Court of Civil Appeals to restrain unauthorized depredation, pending appeal in proceedings to probate a will, upon testatrix's property by temporary administratrix appointed by county court, held not encroachment on jurisdiction of county court to administer estates of deceased persons.-Stewart v. Poinbeouf, 201 S. W. 1025. 207(4) (Tex.) Where relator, seeking to compel issuance of prospecting permit, alleged the land had been surveyed, which the defendant denied, there was an issue of fact necessary to be determined as determining rights of the parties, beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, on original application for mandamus.Wagner v. Robison, 201 S. W. 171. 207(5) (Ky.) Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals, conferred by Const. § 110, will not be exercised by writ of prohibition unless court sought to be prohibited is proceeding in matter over which it has no jurisdiction.-Western Oil Refining Co. v. Wells, 201 S. W. 473. supervision of action of juvenile court.-State v. Bockman, 201 S. W. 741. Under Thompson's Shannon's Code, §§ 6063, 6072, providing that jurisdiction of all matters not otherwise provided for is intrusted to circuit court, one adjudged to be juvenile delinquent by juvenile court of county may obtain review by certiorari in circuit court.-Id. 247(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where it appears from face of petition for injunction in county court that such court had no jurisdiction over subject-matter of suit, Court of Civil Appeals has no jurisdiction over appeal from judgment of county court.-Luhning v. Scott, 201 S. W. 663. VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. 231(5) (Mo.) Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of appeal from suit against power company and city to restrain erection of poles by (A) Jurisdiction and Powers in General. power company under permit from city, city having no real interest, as required by Rev. St.264(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Federal court whose 1909, § 1729.-Frolichstein v. Cupples' Station Light, Heat & Power Co., 201 S. W. 897. 231(19) (Mo.) Where appeal was taken after validity of Rev. St. 1909, § 7042, relating to service of process en foreign corporations, had been established, the Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction upon constitutional grounds.-Lewis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 851. 231(19) (Mo.) Where appeal was taken after validity of Rev. St. 1909, § 7042, relating to service of process on foreign corporations, had been established, the Supreme Court had no appellate jurisdiction upon constitutional grounds.-Lewis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 201 S. W. 852. receiver has taken possession of railroad com- VIII. CONCURRENT AND_CONFLICT- 480 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) District court has no jurisdiction to enjoin sale of nonresident's property pursuant to valid justice court judgment upon ground that property was exempt from execution.-Mann v. Brown, 201 S. W. 438. (B) State Courts and United States Courts. 231(21) (Mo.) Where federal statutes under which recovery was sought were not alleged to be invalid, Springfield Court of Appeals had jurisdiction, in view of Const. 1875, art. 6, § 12, and Amendment 1884, § 5, since Court of Ap-489(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reservation of jurpeals was highest court where decisions could isdiction in decree of federal court, wherein have been had and its judgment was reviewable validity and priority of claims on principles by the United States Supreme Court under Rev. of equity were determined, held not to preSt. U. S. § 709 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 1214). clude state court from passing on claim under -Mitchell v. Joplin Nat. Bank, 201 S. W. 903. Rev. St. 1911, art. 6625, against property sold Const. 1875, art. 6, § 12, and Amendment by receiver.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. 1884, § 5, confers on Supreme Court jurisdic- Concrete Inv. Co., 201 S. W. 718. tion only where validity of a federal statute is involved and not merely where federal question is involved.-Id. 231(23) (Mo.) In prosecution for violation of city ordinance, defendant's motion to quash complaint because ordinance on which it was based was unconstitutional and void, without pointing out provision of the Constitution claimed to have been violated, did not give Supreme Court jurisdiction of his appeal.-City of Lancaster v. Reed, 201 S. W. 95. 231(35) (Mo.) Where plaintiff alleged that her attorney had obtained a quitclaim deed for certain land in his own name, and satisfied a deed of trust to plaintiff, and the answer averred absolute ownership of the land to be in defendant, the title to real estate is involved, conferring jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. -Thorn v. Poynor, 201 S. W. 850. 231(44) (Mo.App.) Title to realty held involved in suit by purchaser at foreclosure sale to compel trustee to execute and deliver deed, that appellate jurisdiction, under Const. art. 6, § 12 and Const. Amend. 1884, § 5, was in Supreme Court.-Wright v. Cobb, 201 S. W. 912. 80 489 (10) (Tex. Civ. App.) Federal court which appointed receiver held not to have exclusive jurisdiction over suit to enjoin railroad company from removing division headquarters from a town at which they were established pursuant to contract made by receiver.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. City of Ennis, 201 S. W. 256. COVENANTS. See Infants, 105; Landlord and Tenant, 44. TION. II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA(D) Covenants Running with the Land. 80 (Mo.App.) That deed from defendant's grantee to unincorporated company and from it to plaintiff's grantor were void, held not to deprive plaintiff of right to sue on defendant's covenant of seisin, where in a suit by heirs of defendant's grantee against the company and plaintiff's grantor a final decree was rendered that the land was owned by plaintiff's grantor, in view of Rev. St. 1909, § 2793.-Talbert v. Grist, 201 S. W. 906. III. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. 231(48) (Mo.) Const. art. 6, § 12, giving Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in cases involving construction of revenue laws, does not 89 (Mo.App.) Where notice to defendant authorize appeals in proceedings to enforce who conveyed land by warranty deed to plaindrainage benefit assessments, although such as- tiff's predecessor was that suits had been comsessments are collected as are other taxes.-menced to try title to land, that is, suits as State ex rel. Broughton v. Oliver, 201 S. W. provided by Rev. St. §§ 2535, 2536. defendant 868. cannot complain in suit by plaintiff on ranty in defendant's deed that notices did not state that court would be asked to allow plaintiffs in those cases improvements, in view of 246 (Tenn.) Under Thompson's Shannon's Code. §§ 6321a, 6329, neither Supreme Court nor Court of Civil Appeals can have immediate war sections 2100, 2401-2405.-Talbert v. Grist, ors, and section 15 not giving circuit court 201 S. W. 906. exclusive jurisdiction.-Gans v. State, 201 S. W. 823. IV. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. 121(3) (Mo. App.) Where defendant who conveyed land by warranty deed to plaintiff's predecessor did not appear after notice of suit to determine title, he is estopped in a suit by plaintiff on warranty in deed to say that case was not properly tried and is bound by judgment awarding the improvements to defendants therein in view of Rev. St. 1909, § 2535.-Talbert v. Grist, 201 S. W. 906. 94 (Ky.) Under Cr. Code Prac. § 13, subsec. 5, 6, county court had jurisdiction to try offense of selling oil without first having oil inspected and barrels branded or marked, penalty therefor, prescribed by Ky. St. § 2208, being fine of $20 for each barrel illegally sold.-Western Oil Refining Co. v. Wells, 201 S. W. 473. X. EVIDENCE. (A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and In suit against defendant on warranty in his deed by plaintiffs who had defended title after notice to defendant, defendant could not 304 (17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Tick Eradicomplain of action of court in awarding im- cation and Quarantine Law, court and jury provements to defendants in such suits; deci- will take judicial notice of rules and regulations sion being to defendant's advantage.—Id. of live stock sanitary commission proclaimed by Governor, but judicial notice cannot be taken of rules and regulations not so proclaimed.-Mulkey v. State, 201 S. W. 991. 130(4) (Tex. Civ.App.) Measure of damages in suit upon general warranty of title to land is purchase money, with interest at legal rate from date of payment.-Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Ewing, 201 S. W. 1163. 130(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where title to only part of land sold under general warranty of title fails, vendor is liable upon his warranty for damages bearing same proportion to whole purchase money as value of the part as to which title fails bears to the whole premises, estimated at prices paid.-Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Ewing, 201 S. W. 1163. Where warrantors, by payment of $5,000, obtained for their warrantees good title to only 132 out of 320 acres of land warranted, they were entitled to release from only 132/320 of their warranty liability, and not to the extent of $5,000 absolutely.-Id. COVERTURE. See Husband and Wife. CREDIBILITY. Proof of violation of proclamation of Governor defining quarantine areas, etc., which did not purport to show that regulations had been prescribed by live stock sanitary commission. held not sufficient to support conviction of violation of rules and regulations of commission; for court cannot take judicial notice that rules proclaimed were those of commission. -Id. (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, and Res Gestæ. 351(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for perjury committed on writ of habeas corpus See Criminal Law. 944; Trial, 140; for bail in a homicide case, evidence as to deWitnesses, 393. CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy; Fraudulent Conveyances; CRIMINAL LAW. fendant's evasion of process to bring him in as witness on trial for homicide was not admissible against him on theory he was fugitive.Roberts v. State, 201 S. W. 998. 359 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where identity of offender is in issue or his connection with offense controverted, it is generally permissible to introduce evidence of acts and declarations of third parties which tend to show that they and not accused committed offense.— Chenault v. State, 201 S. W. 657; Jackson v. Same, Id. 658. See Adultery; Bail, 43-70; Banks and Banking, 84, 85; Disorderly House; Forgery; Grand Jury; Homicide, 169; Indictment and Information; Intoxicating Liqnors. 219-238; Larceny; Perjury; Pros-363 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for astitution; Rape: Receiving Stolen Goods; Witnesses, 337. II. CAPACITY TO COMMIT AND RE- 52 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for rape, where defendant set up temporary insanity on account of drunkenness in mitigation of penalty, the court in instructions properly limited defense to a state of mind rendering accused incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Dodd v. State, 201 S. W. 1014. IV. JURISDICTION. 83 (Ark.) Jurisdiction when conferred upon one court does not operate to oust other courts otherwise possessing it because current jurisdiction is not inconsistent.-Gans v. State, 201 S. W. 823. con sault to murder, where defendant denied he was shooting at the alleged assaulted party, what was said immediately after the shooting between the two was admissible as a part of the res gesta.-Covington v. State, 201 S. W. 179. 365 (1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for burglary of store, where upon same trip and at about same time defendant entered another store, it was competent for state to trace defendant to develop as part of res gestæ things done while on expedition, although it disclosed another offense.-Burnett v. State, 201 S. W. 409. 366 (1) (Mo.) In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, declarations made by wounded party at time she was shot of spontaneous character relating to offense were admissible. -State v. Kester, 201 S. W. 62. 368(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for 93 (Ark.) Municipal court of Little Rock murder, testimony of a witness as to what deunder Acts 1915, p. 347. § 10, held, in view of ceased's father said, about 60 yards from the Kirby's Dig. §§ 1547-1549, to have jurisdic-killing, while a fight was going on, to the eftion of prosecution for violation of Acts 1917, fect that they were killing his boy, was admisp. 41. known as "bone dry" act; section 19 of sible as res gesta.-Lowe v. State, 201 S. W. act disclosing that violations are misdemean- 986. |