페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

were

under the statute of frauds (Rev. St. 1909, $1 to ascertain whether voluntary conveyance in2784) an acceptance and receipt of goods.-Id. jured or defrauded subsequent creditor.-Lee

Hardware Co. v. Johnson, 201 S. W. 289.
VIII. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY
OF WRITING.

(D) Jurisdiction, Limitations, and Lachen. w 118(4) (Tenn.) Where defendant by signed am 249 (Ark.) Existing creditors may be denied letter offered complainant employment for two relief against conveyance fraudulent as to them, years and he by signed letter indicated his ac

if they delay too long.-Lee Hardware Co. v. ceptance, held, that there was a compliance Johnson, 20i S. W. 289. with statute of frauds (Thompson's Shannon's Code, $ 3112, subsec. 5), though it be necessary

(G) Evidence. that 'written memorandum be signed by each 273 (Ark.) To avoid voluntary conveyance party.--Brewer v. De Camp Glass Casket Co., in favor of subsequent creditors' intent to de201 S. W. 145.

fraud, existing or subsequent creditors must IX. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF be provided.—Lee Hardware Co. v. Johnson, 201 STATUTE.

S. W. 289. Om 136 (Mo.App.) Where an oral contract of em 299(1) (Ark.). In suit to set aside deed by employment for a year, with an oral agreement husband and wife to son as in fraud of crediat the same time to pay certain extra expenses tors, evidence held to show, considered in conin case commission on sales for the year did not nection with lapse of time between the convesamount to enough to pay same, could not be ance and creation of plaintiff's claim, that plainenforced, in view of Rev. St. 1909, $ 2783, for- tiff was not injured or defrauded by conveyance. bidding suit upon an oral agreement, not to be --Lee Hardware Co. v. Johnson, 201 S. W. 289. performed within one year, recovery of such extra expenses could not be had on the theory of

FUTURES. complete performance, where that feature of the contract was not capable of performance within See Gaming. a year, and there was no acceptance of perform

GAMING. ance with respect thereto.- Johnson v. American Paper Products Co., 201 S. W. 651.

I. GAMBLING CONTRACTS AND

TRANSACTIONS. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

(A) Nature and Validity. I. TRANSFERS AND TRANSACTIONS 12 (Tex.Civ.App.) That at time of making INVALID.

contract for future delivery seller has not (B) Nature and Form of Transfer.

goods in his possession, and has no means of Ca 24(1) (Ky ) Where two brothers held land purchasing them after contract is made, does

obtaining them for delivery otherwise than by jointly, and there was a partition by cross

not invalidate contract.-International Life Ins. conveyances, such conveyances' were not in fraud of creditors, since rights of creditors Co. v. Stuart, 201 s. W. 1088.

not changed.-Sullivan v. Sullivan, 201 (B) Rights and Remedies of Parties. S. W. 24.

Cw48(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition which alleg. (C) Property and Rights Transferred. ed ordinary transaction of purchase by plaintiff Om 45 (Mo.) Where property, held by husband from defendant of 15 bales of cotton, and and wife in entirety, was by' them conveyed to plaintiff's making a contract for resale calling a third party with agreement to reconvey to the for delivery on same date, held not to show on wife alone, she having paid the consideration face that transaction was a gambling one.therefor out of her separate estate, and the hus- Dixon v. Winters, 201 S. W. 1103. band being in financial difficulties, such transaction was not one in fraud of creditors, preclud

GARNISHMENT. ing equitable aid, where third party violated his agreement.-Butte Inv. Co. v. Bell, 201 S. w. See Attachment; Judgment, 705, 880.

II. PERSONS AND PROPERTY SUB(E) Consideration.

JECT TO GARNISHMENT. 95(1) (Ky.) A judgment debtor's conveyance ww 51 (Mo.App.) If drafts and bills of lading of lands to his wife without consideration was fraudulent and void as against the unsatisfied to shipper's order are delivered to a bank, and prior judgment.-Harris v. Harris, 201 S. W. ceeds of sales of the shipments by a factor

a sale of the shipment is intended, the pro312.

cannot be garnished for a debt of the shipper.96(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Gift of personal prop- Cochrane v. First State Bank of Pickton, Tex., erty by father to minor child when father is 201 S. W. 572. solvent is valid even as against a creditor.Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. W. 1057.

VIII. CLAIMS BY THIRD PERSONS. II. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF 218 (Ark.) Where bank brought garnishPARTIES AND PURCHASERS.

ment to recover part of cotton crop under

chattel mortgage given to it by one who pur(A) Original Parties.

ported to be the landlord of tenant who had Om 172(2) (Ky.) While the law will not en- sold crop, and another intervened, claiming to force any executory contract in fraud of cred- be the true landlord, evidence held to sustain itors, grantor cannot resist recovery of the finding that plaintiff's mortgagor was in posproperty by the grantee, upon the ground that session and entitled to mortgage crop.-Yoes v. the deed was made to defraud his creditors. Commercial Bank of Alma, 201 S. W. 826. --Sullivan v. Sullivan, 201 S. W. 24. Om 174 (3) (Mo.) A court of equity will not

GIFTS. lend an assisting hand to person in his efforts to recover property conveyed in fraud of his See Infants, ww28. creditors.-Butte Inv. Co. v. Bell, 201 S. W. 880.

I. INTER VIVOS. III. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS AND 29 (Mo.App.) It is not a sufficient delivery PURCHASERS.

of stock for a party merely to have the stock

transferred to the name of the donee, but in (A) Persons Entitled to Assert Invalidity addition to this an actual or constructive deCow 208 (Ark.) Time that elapsed between con- livery of the stock to the donee must be shown. veyance and creation of debt may be considered. --Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557,

m47(1) (Mo.App.) The law will raise a pre

GUARANTY. sumption of a gift from parent to child from circumstances where it would not be presumed See Bills and Notes, On 246; Indemnity. between strangers.-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Om 47 (1) (Tenn.) Where proceeds of potes or Cm 16(1), (Tex.Civ.App.) Extension of note, or death of payee were found in hands of his ex release of security, is sufficient consideration ecutor, and notes were not indorsed when col- for written guaranty of note.-McDaniel v. lected, payee's ownership is presumed as Cage & Crow, 201 S. W. 1078. against one claiming gift to executor for his om 16(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) A written contract benefit.-Allen v. Hays, 201 S. W. 135.

guaranteeing payment of overdue note, held w 47 (2) (Mo.App.) Where a gift is entirely void because without consideration.-Oak Cliff beneficial to the donee, his acceptance of it will | State Bank & Trust Co. v. Conroy, 201 S. W. ordinarily be presumed, unless the contrary ap- | 699, pears.-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557.

Om 17 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, in consideration Cw49(6), (Tenn.) Where notes were not in- of written guaranty of note of guarantor's dedorsed when collected, and proceeds on death ceased brother, noteholder extended note and of payee were found in executor's hands, one waived lien on horses under mortgage securing claiming a gift to the executor for his benefit note, which horses guarantor's son was to use inust overcome presumption of payee's owner- in hauling to secure funds to pay note, considship by clear and satisfactory proof.-Allen v. eration for guaranty did not fail because deHays, 201 S. W. 135.

ceased brother's administrator took possession Om 50 (Mo.App.) Where a father bad shares of horses.-McDaniel v. Cage & Crow, 201 S. of stock issued to his son on the books, and W. 1078. mailed him notice of a stockholders' meeting, his retaining the stock and attempting to yote

IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. it in his son's absence, without proxy, did not w92(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on written show as a matter of law that there was no guaranty of note, where evidence as to valuable delivery.-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W, 557.

consideration for guaranty by extension of note

was in main undisputed, issue of consideration GOOD FAITH.

was one of law for court.-McDaniel v. Cage See Bills and Notes, www332-378, 525; Eject- & Crow, 201 S. W. 1078.

ment, Omw 142; Vendor and Purchaser,
230-242.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM.
GOOD WILL.

See Infants, em 77-84.
Cw6(2) (Tenn.) “Good will” is property in
sense of being a thing subject to be damaged,

GUARDIAN AND WARD. and injunction will lie to protect it when seller of good will thereafter wrongfully interferes See Injunction, Em 28. with it or property conveyed of which good will is incident.-Fine v. Lawless, 201 8. W. II. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, 160.

AND TENURE OF GUARDIAN. Where seller of business with good will asnot to interfere with purchaser's rights in band, it is not contrary to good morals and pubsigned lease, seller impliedly obligated himself Cw13(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a mother of mi

nors claims all of the estate left by her buspremises, and it was breach to obtain new lease, that destroying purchaser's "tenant-right ian to protect the interest of the minors.-Mc

lic policy to appoint a third person as a guardof renewal.”-Id.

Allen v. Wood, 201 S. W. 433. Om 6(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Covenant of good will in sale of transfer business held not violated cient to show that temporary guardian was ap

em 13(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held insuffiby renting stables to another in such business and allowing him to use the telephone number. pointed or had himself appointed for mere pur- Houston Transfer & Carriage Co. v. Wil: pose of giving certain attorneys employment.liams, 201 S. W. 712.

McAllen v. Wood, 201 S. W. 433. Em 6(4) (Tenn.) Upon sale of good will of children, declarations of applicant that she was

In proceeding to be appointed guardian of her business without more, seller is not precluded owner of estate left by her husband's will to from setting up precisely similar business at children were admissible as bearing on qualificaanother stand in same locality, and if pur: tions.-Id. chaser desires to forestall such step he must expressly stipulate against it.--Fine v. Lawless, !38) (Tex.Civ.App.) District court has ju201 S. W. 160.

risdiction to entertain certiorari to revise order

of county court appointing temporary guardian, GRAND JURY.

under Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts.

4096, 4301.-McAllen y. Wood, 201 S. W. 433. See Indictment and Information,

IV. SALES AND CONVEYANCES UN39 (Tex.Cr. App.) Indictment found after

DER ORDER OF COURT. state's and district attorney, sheriff, and chief of police were before grand jury discuss-m75 (Ky.). Under Ky. St. 88 2034, 2039, reing whether to proceed by injunction or indict. lating to maintenance of ward, a guardian canment, was invalid, in view of Code Cr. Proc. not subject the real estate for maintenance or 1911, arts. 416, 425-428, 570, as to grand jury education of ward without first having made proceedings.-McGregor v. State, 201 S. W. 184. application to a court of chancery.- Nunnelly's

Guardian v. Nunnelly, 201 S. W. 976.
GRANTS.

VIII. LIABILITIES ON GUARDIANSee Public Lands.

SHIP BONDS.

0182(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Guardian's bond havGRASS.

ing been given for $3,000 in favor of six wards, See Damages, 112.

and guardian having made full settlement with

two, bond inured to remaining four, one of GROSS.

whom was properly allowed to recover less

than fourth of amount of bond against bondsSee Vendor and Purchaser, Cars 165.

men.-Lynch v. Bernhardt, 201. S. W. 1051. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

no

no

HABEAS CORPUS.

HIGHWAYS. 1. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF See Municipal Corporations, em 705; Quo REMEDY.

Warranto, Om8; Railroads, 99, 325-348;

Statutes, cm 94. 4 (Tenn.) Writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to serve purpose of an appeal or writ I. ESTABLISHMENT, ALTERATION, of error.--State v. West, 201 S. W. 743.

AND DISCONTINUANCE. II. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS,

(D) Titie to Fee and Rights of Abatting

Owners.
AND RELIEF.

Om 80 (Ky.) In the absence of any showing on Cm92(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) The merits of a case the subject, the presumption is that the county involving guilt or innocence of an accused is has only an easement, and not a fee in the land not a proper subject of inquiry in a writ of occupied by a highway.-Charles v. Phillips, 201 habeas corpus.-Ex parte Rogers, 201 S. W. S. W. 313. 1157.

88 (Ky.) Where county owns fee in highww93 (Tenn.) Where the juvenile court enter-way, fiscal court may grant privilege of occupy. ed a judgment that a child was delinquent, ques- | ing part of the right of way without interfering tions determined in such proceeding cannot be with the public use, and abutting landowners again reviewed in habeas corpus by the mother cannot complain.-Charles v. Phillips, 201 S. W. of the child, assuming that the proceedings of 313. the juvenile court were valid.-Juvenile Court

II. HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND of Shelby County v. State, 201 S. W. 771.

OFFICERS. 99(1) (Tenn.) Under Thompson's Shannon's Code, $ 5503, where juvenile court in proceed- en 90 (Ark.) Acts 1917, vol. 1, p. 814, § 1, ing under Acts 1911, c. 58, entered judgment creating road improvement districts in St. awarding custody of a child, questions deter- | Francis county, held not invalid because two mined in such proceeding cannot be again liti- of the sections enumerated were within angated in habeas corpus proceeding, by the other district; the enumeration of such secsame parties on same state of facts; the office tions being for the purpose of identifying the of the writ being to develope what the true road and not of authorizing work upon, those interests of the child require.-State v. West, sections.-Marshall v. Baugh, 201 S. W. 808. 201 S. W. 743.

Cm90 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $ 10612, as em 113(13) (Mo.App.) After a judgment of added by Laws 1913, p. 678, as to incorporation the Court of Appeals in original proceedings in of road districts, held, that the court is not habeas corpus, denying petition of father and authorized to make any change which does not awarding custody to maternal grandparents, conform to the petition as amended in the abhas been reversed by the Supreme Court, re sence of remonstrance, and an order incorspondents' motion to amend answer and take porating a district with different boundaries new testimony upon matters of record, al- than those stated in the petition was invalid, ready held insufficient for withholding custody where there was remonstrance and from father, or others that could as well have amended petition.-State, on Inf. of Killam, v. been formerly presented, will be denied.--Ex Colbert, 201 S. W. 52. parte Crockett, 201 S. W. 914.

While the county court had authority to pass Om 114 (Tenn.) Statutory certiorari from cir- upon the facts showing jurisdiction, its findcuit court lies to review action of juvenile ing was not conclusive, since the acts of the court in habeas corpus proceedings involving court must have been within its jurisdiction.custody of child, and statutory certiorari will Id. issue that case may be tried again upon mer Where the county court exceeded its jurisdicits in circuit court, and not common-law writ tion by incorporating with different boundaries of certiorari, which opens for review_merely than those stated in the petition or amendment, legality of action of inferior tribunal.-Jones v. in the absence of remonstrance, the entire State, 201 S. W. 760.

proceeding was void.--Id.

The county court acts judicially in determiaHARMLESS ERROR.

ing jurisdiction, and whether the land will be

benefited, so that such determination must preSee Appeal and Error, Cw1031-1070; Crimi- cede incorporation, and jurisdiction must apo

nal Law, C1166-1172; Homicide, 0338 pear affirmatively from the record.-Id. 340.

In incorporating road districts under Rev.

St. 1909, 8 10612, as added by Laws 1913, p. HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS. 678, construction thereof requiring judicial de

termination whether the lands will be benefited See Licenses, m 16.

and prohibiting change from boundaries as

stated in the petition, in the absence of amendHEALTH.

ment or remonstrance is not inconsistent with

section 10611, generally authorizing organizaSee Food; Schools and School Districts, tion of districts of any dimensions that may be 158.

deemed advisable.-Id. II. REGULATIONS AND OFFENSUS.

The county court's act in changing such

boundaries was not a mere irregularity, all the ww33 (Tex.Civ.App.) "Unlawfully practicing property in the district being affected by the medicine,” within provisions of Pen. Code variance in the order from the petition, and the 1911, arts. 754, 755, cannot be enjoined as order, being inseparable, could not be in part "trade, business, or occupation injurious to valid if in part void.-Id. health of those in the neighborhood." within Its order could not be sustained on the the. meaning of article 694 and Code Cr. Proc. ory that in fact the district described in the 1911, art. 148, authorizing injunction of inju- petition had been incorporated thereby.-Id. rious occupation after indictment therefor.- 90 (Mo.) A special road district organized Crowder v. Graham, 201 S. W. 1053.

under Rev. St. 1909, 8$ 10433-10665, is a quasi

political subdivision of the county and of the HEARSAY EVIDENCE.

state.-Lamar v. Bolivar Special Road Dist.,

201 S. W. 890. See Criminal Law, w 419, 420; Evidence, 318-324.

IV. TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND

WORK ON HIGHWAYS.
HEIRS.

140 (Ark.) Under Acts 1917, vol. 1, p. See Descent and Distribution; Wills, Em506.1 814, as to road districts, section 12 of which

provides for assessment of properties, the dis- / giving deed of trust, as if it were not a hometrict commissioners may assess the benefits, stead.–Church v. Hayner, 201 S. W. 711. and the mere fact that they assessed no bene Unless there is reasonable necessity for such fits upon lands more than three miles from action by husband alone, he cannot convey or either of the roads to be improved did not mortgage homestead to cancel or adjust equishow an arbitrary assessment.-Marshall v. ties.-Id. Baugh, 201 S. W. 808.

118(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Deed of trust cor@mw 144 (Ark.) Under Acts 1917, vol. 1, p. 814, ering homestead, given by husband alone, unless as to road districts, section 12' of which pro- given to acquire it, or pursuant to agreement vides for a reassessment if the original assess as to its acquisition, or unless he had power ment is invalid, the fact that the commission to give it in adjusting equities against homeers made an erroneous or arbitrary assess-stead, cannot be sustained.-Church v. Hayner, ment would not defeat the organization of the 201 S. W. 711. district, but the commissioners could be compelled to make a new assessment.-Marshall v. IV. ABANDONMENT, WAIVER, OR Baugh, 201 S. W. 808.

FORFEITURE. V. REGULATION AND USE FOR

En 18142 (Tex.Civ. App.) Abandonment of homeTRAVEL

stead on sale and conveyance held question

of fact, though defendants remained in posses(B) Use of Highway and Law of the Road. sion until they could obtain possession of a

165 (Ky.) County which has only easement newly acquired homestead.-Jones V. Lanning, in highway can neither erect nor maintain tram-201 S. W. 443. way nor grant to another the privilege or right of erecting or maintaining it.-Charles v. Phil

HOMICIDE. lips, 201 S. W. 313.

See Criminal Law, 371, 404, 421, 854, 1154; Cu 184(2) (Mo.) In a pedestrian's action for Infants, cm16; Indictment and Information, injuries in being run over by automobile, evi

Ow119. dence held to justify finding that injury was

II. MURDER. negligently inflicted.—Miller v. Harpster, 201 em 27 (Ark.) In murder trial insanity is not S. W. 854.

defense unless accused was insanely incapable (C) Injuries from Defects or Obstruc of knowing nature of his act, or, if he did tions.

know it, that he was insanely incapable of 198 (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, $10577, stating there was an irresistible impulse to do act, al

realizing he was doing wrong, or, finally, if the powers of special road districts, and section 10585, imposing the duty of repairing the though accused realized its nature, and knew roads upon the commissioners and not upon

it to be wrong.-Hankins v. State, 201 S. W.

832. the district, did not make the road district liable for injuries by defects in the roads.- Lamar Cm 30(1) (Ky.) One aiding and abetting with v. Bolivar Special Road Dist., 201 S. W. 890. malice aforethought, who incites the killing, is

guilty of murder, even if the one doing the killHOMESTEAD.

ing acted in sudden heat of passion, and so was

only guilty of manslaughter.-Parker v. ComSee Exemptions.

monwealth, 201 S. W. 475.

On30(1) (Mo.) If there was a conspiracy beI. NATURE, ACQUISITION, AND tween defendants to kill an arresting officer, EXTENT.

both defendants would be guilty, though one of (C) Acquisition and Establishment. them at the time had no purpose or intent to

aid, and did not aid, in such killing, as a conw33 (Tex.Civ. App.) Defendants, by remaining spiracy makes each responsible for the act of on homestead after sale and until they could ob- the other done in the scope of such conspir: tain possession of newly acquired homestead, acy.--State v. Lewis, 201 S. W. 80. held not to have made new designation of the property as their homestead.-Jones v. Lanning, IV. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO KILL, 201 S. W. 443.

Om 86 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, 8 4481, de(E) Liabilities Enforceable Against fining assault with intent to kill, intent must Homestead.

appear, and mere fact that accused shot in diOm 94 (Tex.Civ.App.) Intent at time property rection of dwelling house, and chanced to was acquired after abandonment of former wound a woman in window, whom he did not homestead to use the property so acquired as a see, and could not have seen, did not warrant homestead held a dedication rendering it exempt conviction.-State v. Kester, 201 S. W. 62. from the lien of existing judgment.-Jones v. Lanning, 201 S. W. 443.

V. EXCUSABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE A homestead could be acquired in community

HOMICIDE. property purchased after an abstract of judg-1 12(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) To preclude reliance ment had been filed, recorded, and indexed, so as on self-defense, the provoking of the difficulty to render it exempt from the judgment lien. must have been with felonious intent and as a -Id.

pretext for killing deceased.--Sheely v. State,

201 S. W. 1012. II. TRANSFER OR INCUMBRANCE. em 110 (Tex.Civ.App.) Abandoned wife, with

VII. EVIDENCE. out minor children or single daughters living

(B) Admissibility in General, with her, or other constituent members of 158(1) (Mo.) In prosecution for assault family, may mortgage her homestead.---Wil- with intent to kill by shooting at dwelling liams v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Stephenville, house, evidence that on the preceding day ac201 S. W. 1083.

cused had threatened occupant, and said he O 1 18(1) (Mo.) A deed of one entitled to would kill him, was admissible to show animur a contingent homestead operates only by way of of accused.--State v. Kester, 201 S. W. 62. estoppel as a release of a contingent future w163(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for murder, estate, and not by way of grant.-Lemon v. testimony of one who had lived close neighbor Lemon, 201 S. W. 103.

to accused for 7 years that he had never heard 1182) (Tex.Civ.App.) Existence of pur- anything against accused's reputation, and chase-money lien against homestead did not au therefore thought it to be good. was compethorize husband alone to deal with property, byl tent.--McCain v. State, 201 S. W. 840.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

163(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for murder.- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. murder, where accused alleged deceased bad 318. insulted accused's wife, conceding specific acts c250 (Mo.) Evidence held sufficient to supof unchastity or bad conduct on deceased's part port a conviction for murder.-State v. Black. could have been shown, offer to show that ac, burn, 201 S. W. 96. cused had been informed that deceased had caused a man and wife to separate was too

VIII. TRIAL. indefinite.--Adler v. State, 201 S. W. 177. ww164, (Tex.Cr. App.) In homicide case, evi

(B) Questions for Jury. dence that deceased was nearly blind is inad- 268 (Ky.) In a prosecution for murder, missibie unless defendant knew of the blind- where the evidence of defendant's guilt was ness.-Clayton v. State, 201 S. W. 172.

circumstantial and upon some questions conflictCm 166(2) (Ky.) On trial of defendant for mur-ing, it was such as demanded submission to the der of his wife, evidence of his prior arrest for jury.-Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318. whipping her, of her condition and that of their em 268 (Ky.) Evidence held to present jury house furniture at such time, and of his threat to question as to guilt of accused of murder.treat her worse was admissible to show ill feel. Leadingham v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 500. ing as a motive for the homicide.-- Barnes v. em 281 (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to go to Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318.

jury on issue of aiding and abetting with malice, Cena 169 (1) Tex.Cr.App.) A witness in a mur; making defendant guilty of murder.–Parker v. der case could testify properly that deceased Commonwealth, 201 s. W. 475. was a driver of his car and drove it on the night of the homicide, but testimony that ne

(C) Instructions. received a particular telephone call and sent the driver in response thereto was inadmissible. Cow 286(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for --Parker v. State, 201 S. W. 173.

homicide alleged to have been committed with Cw169(2) (Mo.) In trial for murder, where a hoe and a stick of wood, since the weapon defendant claimed that his check to deceased

was not per se a deadly weapon, a charge that in payment of cattle bad been turned over by the intent to kill was not to be presumed exdeceased on his purchase of defendant's farm cept from the manner in which the weapon for $11,500, evidence as to value of defendant's

was used should have been given as required farm was admissible.-State v. Blackburn, 2015.x, Pen. Code 1911, art. 1147.-Lowe v. State, S. W. 96.

201 S. W. 986.

homicide En 169(2), (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for Em 294(1) (Ark.) In

prosecution, murder where the state proved that on the

evidence regarding accused's nervous condinight of the homicide defendant said that he tion and erratic behavior, especially after was going to whip the driver of witness car, separating from his wife, held sufficient basis who was the deceased, the state might prove by for insanity instructions.-Hankins v. State, such witness that deceased was the only driv 201 S. W. 832.

In murder trial refusing to modify instrueer of any car he had at that time.-Parker v.

tion that accused's delusions regarding his State, 201 S. W. 173.

wife's relations with other men was no defense Com 169 (3) (Ark.) In prosecution for murder, by qualification that, if delusions resulted in testimony of accused's father that deceased irresistibiy insane impulse, defendant would had slapped accused's grandmother's jaws 4 be excused, held erroneous.-Id. or 5 years before the killing was properly excluded; being irrelevant.- McCain v. State, 201

295(3) (Ark.) Requested instruction in S. W. 840.

prosecution for murder on provocation and

malice, held properly refused as excluding manOm 169 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for slaughter, and not requiring provocation to homicide, testimony of a prior difficulty during prerede the killing by such short time that no which accused had a knife in his hand was ad cooling time elapsed.-McCain v. State, 201 S. missible as tending to show the state of mind W. Sto. of accused.--Lowe v. State, 201 S. W. 986.

300(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction to view em 170 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for issue of self-defense from defendant's views murder it was not error to admit testimony point and that, if it reasonably appeared to dethat defendant was wearing a hat like the one fendant that deceased was drawing a weapon, the witness wore on the night of the homicide. the shooting was justified, and thilt, if there -Parker v. State, 201 S. W. 173.

was reasonable doubt as to defendant's belief, C17411) (Ark.) In prosecution for murder, he should be acquitted, sufficiently presented it was not error to refuse to permit accused to self-defense, in spite of previous instruction prove by his father that he had been kept in leaving appearances at time of shooting to jail for 6 months, and not permitted to make jury's and not defendant's viewpoint.-Adler bail; such testimony being irrelevant.--McCain v. State, 201 S. W. 177. v. State, 201 S. W. 840.

300(7) Ky.). In prosecution for murder, Om 174(1) (Mo.) In trial for murder, it was evidence held to justify instructions on self-denot error to permit the state to show that the fense.-Leadingham v: Commonwealth, 201 S. defendant took no part in the search for the W. 500. deceased, the weight of such evidence being C300(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) That accused for the jury.-State v. Blackburn, 201 S. W. alleged to have been criminally intimate with 96.

deceased's wife did not warrant submission of (C) Dying Declarations,

self-defense limited by provoking difficulty, on Ow203(5) (Ky.) Deceased's statement, ap- theory that such intimacy provoked the diffipearing to have been made when he had not culty. -Sheely v. State, 201 S. W. 1012. wholly relinquished hope of recovery, is not Where one accused of murder proved that admissible as a dying declaration.-Parker v. deceased's threats against his life had been Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 475.

communicated to him, it was error to refuse

instruction on communicated threats.-Id. (E) Weight and Sufficiency.

C308(3) (Ky.) Where correct instructions were www234(51 (Mo.) In prosecution of two broth- given upon murder, reasonable doubt, and definers for murder, evidence, as against the one ing the technical terms used, being the onls iswho did not fire the fatal shot, held to show a sues upon which there was any evidence, failure conspiracy to murder an officer whenever nee- to give other instructions was not error.--Barnes essary to avoid arrest, etc.-State v. Lewis, v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318. 201 S. W. 80.

ww308(3) (Ky.) In prosecution for murder, C 250 (Ky.) Circumstantial and conflicting ev- evidence held to justify instructions on murder. idence held sufficient to sustain a conviction for 1--Leadingham v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 500.

a

Was

« 이전계속 »