have requisite power, must levy a tax there-209 (2) (La.) On application for writ of for.-Town of Crenshaw v. Panola County, 76 mandamus directed to judge of district court,

1; Appeal and Error, 839; Clerks of Courts; Constitutional Law, 70; Criminal Law, 90, 93; Divorce, 91-161; Equity, 41; Evidence, Injunction, 33; Judges; Jury, 11; Mandamus, 28-51; Removal of Causes; Statutes, 125.

Supreme Court will not review rulings of judge on motions for continuance and for new trial in pending litigation which is appealable to that court.-Mundy v. Phillips, 76 So. 602.

(B) Courts of Particular States.

41216 (Fla.) Circuit court has final appellate jurisdiction of civil cases arising in county judge's court.-Benton v. State, 76 So. 341.

I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE
OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL.

224 (10) (La.) The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only where the matter in dispute or the fund to be distributed exceeds 76 So. 703.

7 (Ala.) Courts of one state may take ju-$2,000, etc.-Zagame v. Chalmette Laundry Co.,

risdiction of transitory cause of action originating in another state when defendant has been 224(11) (La.) Several plaintiffs having sepalocally found and served, although both parties rate demands, each for a sum below Supreme are at the time domiciliary residents of the for- Court's appellate jurisdiction, cannot by cumueign_state.-Weaver v. Alabama Great South-lating their demands and by bringing only one suit give that court jurisdiction on appeal, though sum of demands exceed $2,000, and though they arose from same alleged quasi of

ern R. Co., 76 So. 364.

fense of defendant.-Alessi v. Town of Independence, 76 So. 792.

12(1) (La.) Under Code Prac. arts. 162166, one should be cited in parish in which he has his principal establishment or habitual residence, but one having several residences and occupying one about as much as the other 224(11) (La.) Where litigant seeks to enand who has made no declaration of domicile, force lien, as securing a claim for money, the may be cited at either place.-Mosely v. Dabe- amount in dispute is determined for purposes of zies, 76 So. 705. appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court and of Under Civ. Code, art. 38, the term "principal Courts of Appeal by amount of claim, and not establishment," as used in the law concerning by value of property against which it is assertdomicile, means the principal domestic estab-ed.-Day v. Helena Lumber Co., 76 So. 820. lishment.-Id.

39 (La.) No judgment can be rendered VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTagainst a defendant whose plea to jurisdiction ING JURISDICTION, AND of the court ratione person has been mainCOMITY. tained, unless an appeal is taken from the judg- (A) Courts of Same State, and Transfer ment dismissing the suit against him.-Franek v. Brewster, 76 So. 187.

II. ESTABLISHMENT,

ORGANIZA

TION, AND PROCEDURE IN

GENERAL.

of Causes.

487(5) (Ala.) In suit to remove estate from probate to chancery court, held, that court did not improvidently order removal to chancery court, though bill was not framed to meet Acts 1915, p. 738, authorizing summary order 54 (Ala.) After consolidation of law and for removal.-Gurley v. Bushnell, 76 So. 324. equity court of Monroe county at midnight,488(1) (Ala.) Where action pending in state January 14, 1917, with the circuit court, by Gen. Acts 1915, p. 279, regular judge of law and equity court had no jurisdiction over causes pending therein.-Ex parte City Bank & Trust Co., 76 So. 372.

court is removed to another state court, any attempted subsequent action therein by first tribunal is beyond its jurisdiction.-Ex parte City Bank & Trust Co., 76 So. 372.

(B) State Courts and United States Courts.

90(6) (Miss.) Under Const. 1890, §§ 144, 146, there is no constitutional restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to overrule or 493(3) (Ala.) In bill by creditors against inchange erroneous or wrongful decisions.-Brew-solvent consolidated corporation, held state er v. Browning, 76 So. 519. court having first acquired jurisdiction properThe Supreme Court will overrule decided cas-ly appointed receiver, although federal court es which operate to effect injustice or lead to pending application had appointed one.-Alawrong results, though decided by the great bama, T. & N. Ry. v. Tolman, 76 So, 381. judges of the past.-Id.

COVERTURE.

97(1) (Miss.) In determining liability of carrier in cases of interstate shipments, Supreme Court of this state is governed by deci- See Husband and Wife. sions of United States Supreme Court.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rogers & Hurdle, 76 So. 686. 97(6) (Ala.) Reasonableness of notice of suit

CREDIBILITY.

or of service of process by publication, oppor- See Trial, 140; Witnesses,

tunity to become parties to such judicial proceeding affecting personal or property rights, and right of appeal are questions governed by

CREDITORS.

337-393.

constructions by United States Supreme Court See Bankruptcy; Creditors' Suit; Fraudulent

of state statutes providing for due process of law under Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-Gill v. More, 76 So. 453.

VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURIS

DICTION.

Conveyances; Subrogation.

CREDITORS' SUIT.

(Ala.) Bill in equity, as amended, construed as an ordinary creditor's bill for the discov (A) Grounds of Jurisdiction in General. ery of assets, whether equitable or legal, and 207(1) (La.) The courts of appeal being au- their subjection to plaintiff's claim for attorthorized to issue mandamus, prohibition, and ney's services.-Harton v. Amason, 76 So. 953. certiorari in aid of their appellate jurisdiction, 7 (Ala.) Defendant's fraudulent conveyance application for such writs in cases appealable to such courts should be made to them, and not to Supreme Court.-Day v. Helena Lumber Co.,

of assets held not necessary to the equity of a creditor's bill for the discovery of assets and their subjection to complainant's claim.-Harton

CRIMINAL LAW.

would have been insufficient as an indictment, it was sufficient if the offense was designated See Animals, 36; Arson; Bastards; Bri- by name only, or by words from which it might bery; Burglary, 45; Chattel Mortgages, be inferred.-Nolen v. Jones, 76 So. 935. 231; Constitutional Law, 63; Dis-211(4) (Ala.App.) An affidavit charging vatrict and Prosecuting Attorneys, 8; Elec-grancy in the language of the statute was suffitions, 313; Embezzlement; False Pre- cient.-Brannon v. State, 76 So. 991. tenses; Fish; Forgery; Gaming; Homicide, A motion for a bill of particulars in a prose217; Husband and Wife, 305; In- cution for vagrancy, charged in the language of dictment and Information; Injunction, the statute, was properly overruled.-Id. 105; Insane Persons; Intoxicating Liquors, 218(5) (Ala.) Though a warrant in a prose146-236; Landlord and Tenant, 253; Larceny; Municipal Corporations, 643; Officers, 122; Receiving Stolen Goods; Statutes, 118; Vagrancy; Witnesses, 46, 337.

I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF
CRIME AND DEFENSES IN

GENERAL.

cution before a justice would have been insufficient as an indictment, it was sufficient if the offense was designated by name only, or by words from which it might be inferred.-Nolen v. Jones, 76 So. 935.

260(10) (La.) Judge's failure to sign jurat to affidavit held not fatal irregularity where trial was had before the same judge who could have signed the jurat if objection had been made.-State v. Deane, 76 So. 817.

IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND
NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCON-
TINUANCE.

13 (La.) However certain the intent by Act No. 54 of 1914, § 18, to make it unlawful to knowingly or willfully take, without consent of lessee, oysters growing naturally on reef on leased planting ground, court cannot supply Legislature's omission to express such intent.-269 (Ala.App.) Where indictment charged State v. Guidry, 76 So. 843.

IV. JURISDICTION.

that defendant's name was M. P., "to the grand jury otherwise unknown," defendant's plea of misnomer was demurrable, where it did not controvert allegation that defendant's name was unknown; Code 1907, § 7142, permitting such an allegation.-Putnam v. State, 76 So. 408.

with weapon, held, defendant's plea of former jeopardy by reason of conviction in justice court was sufficient on demurrer; connivance of defendant in securing conviction being matter for state to set up by replication.-Robertson v. State, 76 So. 479.

90(5) (Ala.) The express provision of Code 1907, § 6703, that a prosecution at county court may be begun by affidavit taken before a justice of peace of county and warrant made returna-292(1) (Ala.App.) In prosecution for assault ble to the county court is not affected by the fact of the concurrent jurisdiction of the justice and county court.-Ahlrichs v. Rollo, 76 So. 37. There is no conflict between Code 1907, § 6703, providing that a prosecution before county court may be begun by affidavit taken before a justice of the peace of county, and warrant 301 (La.) Whether defendant who has pleadmade returnable to county court, and section 6738, providing that in all trials before a justice ed not guilty should be allowed to withdraw his of the peace of causes within his jurisdiction he plea is within the discretion of trial judge.must determine law and facts without jury and State v. Hadad, 76 So. 243. award punishment.-Id.

X. EVIDENCE.

(B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, and Res Gestr.

338(3) (Ala.App.) On trial for manslaughter, evidence that defendant was told, if he would tell where deceased was, he would be freed of forgery charge, is made competent by admission, without objection, of defendant's reply that he knew where deceased was, but would not tell.-Lawson v. State, 76 So. 411.

338 (4,5) (La.) On issue of venue, testimony of one witness that another witness pointed out a place to him which he testified that accused was not present, held admissible. was within the parish, though ex parte in sense -State v. Venson, 76 So. 701.

ness testified was within parish was pointed out by another witness, held relevant, where it was mitted at that place.-State v. Venson, 76 So. not offered to show that the crime was com

198 (Fla.) Conviction or acquittal on charge of second offense in selling intoxicating liquors in county which had voted against their sale under Const. art. 19, is defense to another prose-346 (La.) Evidence that place which witcution for alleged sale prior to date named in first indictment.-Thomas v. State, 76 So. 780. 201 (Ala.) Conviction in municipal court for violation of ordinance is not pleadable in defense to a prosecution for same offense in state court, in view of Acts 1915, p. 724, amending 351(3) (Ala.) It was proper to refuse to alCode 1907, § 1222.-Ex parte Bell, 76 So. 1. low defendants to show that they made no attempt to evade arrest where state introduced State, 76 So. 904. no proof tending to show flight.-Hendley v.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AF-
FIDAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMI-
NATION, COMMITMENT, AND

SUMMARY TRIAL.

701.

361(1) (Ala.) Where witness in murder case testified that he met defendants, and one of them said that deceased was below the old ~211(1) (Ala.) Though an affidavit for war- house with his head in the ditch, there was no rant in a prosecution before a justice of the peace error in overruling an objection as to whether

the witness asked about the deceased.-Hendley! are gamblers, though they have never been v. State, 76 So. 904. prosecuted or convicted.-Brannon v. State, 76 So. 991.

400(2) (Miss.) On charge of perjury. in which it was alleged that the perjury occurred in the trial of a civil case before a justice of the peace, it was error to fail to introduce the record of the judgment of the justice.-Harring-563 (Ala.App.) Corpus delicti may be proven by facts and circumstances from which jury ton v. State, 76 So. 143. might legally infer that offense has been com

(F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear-mitted.-McWhorter v. State, 76 So. 325.

670 (Ala.) There was no error in exclud-
ing testimony for defendant that deceased was
in the habit of carrying a pistol, in the ab-782(9) (Ala.App.) Instruction as to degree
sence of an offer then to show that defendant of proof required to convict on circumstantial
knew of such habit, notwithstanding subse- evidence, and other instructions, were properly
quent evidence thereof.-Glover v. State, 76 So. refused, as argumentative.-Lawson v. State, 76
300.
So. 411.

680(1) (Fla.) Order of introduction of evi-784(5) (Ala. App.) Charge that, to justify
dence is within discretion of trial court.-Bar- conviction on circumstantial evidence, it must
ker v. State, 76 So. 676.

695(2) (Ala.App.) General objections to tes-
timony not patently irrelevant are properly
overruled.-Carter v. State, 76 So. 468.
804(1) (Fla.) In a capital case, charges
General objection to a question calling for must be wholly in writing.-McKinney v. State,
material evidence was properly overruled.-Id. | 76 So. 333.
695(2) (Ala.App.) General objection to a807(1) (Ala.App.) Charge that state is as
question asked a witness was properly overrul- much interested in acquittal of innocent as in
ed.-Malone v. State, 76 So. 469.
conviction of guilty was argumentative, and
properly refused.-Adkins v. State, 76 So. 465.

763, 764(7) (Ala.App.) In prosecution for 893 (La.) Under Rev. St. § 995, verdict
violating prohibition laws, charge that the evi- adjudging defendant in criminal prosecution

"not guilty on account of insanity" means that
person acquitted was insane at time of alleged
commission of crime, but does not dispose of
question of his mental condition when verdict
was rendered.-State v. Lafosse, 76 So. 713.
XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL
AND IN ARREST.

reviewed, exceptions should be duly taken.-
McKinney v. State, 76 So. 333.

1059(1) (Ala.App.) Exceptions to disjointed
and disconnected remarks of the solicitor, not
setting out enough for the court to pass upon,
are not well taken.-Brannon v. State, 76 So.
991.

ord.

913(1) (Ala.App.) Function of motion for (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec-
new trial is to set up error of law in trial,
or that defendant has newly discovered evi-1088(18) (Ala.App.) Refusal of written
dence.-Benton v. State, 76 So. 476.
charges required by Acts 1915, p. 815, to be
made part of record proper, is not reviewable,
where charges appear only in bill of excep-
tions.-Carter v. State, 76 So. 468.

935 (1) (Fla.) Where the evidence is con-
flicting, a new trial will not be granted on the
ground that the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence.-Barker v. State, 76 So. 676.
935(2) (Fla.) A new trial should be granted
if there is no evidence sufficient to support a
verdict of guilty.-Middleton v. State, 76 So.
785.

XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND
FINAL COMMITMENT.

989 (Fla.) Before pronouncing sentence up-
on a person convicted of crime, the judge pro-
nouncing the sentence should ask prisoner if he
has anything to say why sentence should not
be pronounced upon him.-Thomas v. State, 76
So. 780.

XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND
CERTIORARI.

in

1088(18) (Ala.App.) Charges appearing only
bill of exceptions, and not in record proper,
as required by law, are not reviewable.-Malone
v. State, 76 So. 469.

1090(5) (Ala.) Defendant appealing on ree-
ord proper without bill of exceptions, overruling
of motion to quash indictment, or to quash veni-
re because true copy of indictment was not
served, or overruling of objections to being put
on trial because of such defect cannot be re-
viewed.-Sager v. State, 76 So. 927.

1090(7) (La.) The denial of a continuance
cannot be reviewed, where no bill of excep-
tion was reserved to the ruling.-State v. Ven-
son, 76 So. 701.

1090(14) (Ala.App.) Where time for signing
and filing bill of exceptions has expired, and
(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and there is no bill of exceptions in the record,
court will not review charges given and refused.

Right of Review.

1011 (Fla.) Common-law writ of certiorari-Richey v. State, 76 So. 471.
cannot be made to serve purpose of an appel-1090(14) (Ala.App.) Where no bill of ex-
late proceeding in nature of writ of error with ceptions has been filed, and oral charge of court
bill of exceptions.-Benton v. State, 76 So. 341. is not set out in record, refusal of requested
1018 (Fla.) Circuit court has final appellate written charges will not be reviewed.-Franklin
jurisdiction of criminal cases arising in county v. State, 76 So. 476.
judge's court.-Benton v. State, 76 So. 341.

1020 (La.) Jurisdiction of case in which
punishment imposed is insufficient to give ju-
risdiction held not to be taken because of
pendency of another case in which the sentence
was sufficient for jurisdiction.-State v. Peters,
76 So. 703.

1091(12) (Fla.) In a capital case, charges,
when signed by trial judge and filed, become
part of record, and need not be incorporated in
bill of exceptions.-McKinney v. State, 76 So.
333.

~1105(1) (Fla.) A statement, entitled "Re
port of Testimony in Proceedings Had at Trial,"
attached to the bill of exceptions, but not au-
(B) Presentation and Reservation in Low-thenticated by certificate of trial judge, cannot
er Court of Grounds of Review.
be considered.-McKinney v. State, 76 So. 333.
1030 (2) (Fla.) When constitutionality of 1114(3) (Ala.) On certiorari, where evidence
a statute is not raised in trial court, but is is not before this court, decision of Court of
merely suggested in briefs filed, and statute Appeals, reversing judgment of conviction for
is not patently in conflict with Constitution, giving of an instruction, will not be disturbed.
its validity will not be considered.-Ellis v.
-Ex parte State, 76 So. 568.
State, 76 So. 698.

1031(4) (Ala.App.) Where criminal case is
tried on plea of former jeopardy, defective in
substance, without objection to manner in
which issue is raised, question of its sufficiency
cannot be raised in Court of Appeals.-Coster
v. State, 76 So. 475.

in good faith bases, as required, his argument
1119(4) (La.) Whether prosecuting officer
and conclusions upon evidence adduced, is for
trial judge, whose rulings are final, unless, by
producing all the evidence, the party interested
puts Supreme Court in position to review them
on appeal.-State v. Conners, 76 So. 611.
1032(5) (Ala.) Under Code 1907, § 6828, as 1120(3) (Ala.App.) Under Supreme Court
to embezzlement by "agent," held, on appeal use rule No. 45 (61 South. ix), where solicitor ob-
of word "servant" in alternative would not ren- jected to question to witness on cross-examina-
der indictment void and render reversal neces- tion, and court sustained objection, there being
sary where point was not raised in trial court.
no showing as to what witness would have an-
-Ex parte State, 76 So. 445.
swered, court's action was not reversible error.-
Malone v. State, 76 So. 469.

1035(6) (Ala.) Objection to impaneling of
jury must be taken below, and exception reserv-
ed, in order that the matter may be reviewed.1120(3) (Fla.) Appellant must make alleged
errors apparent and should set forth excluded
-Hendley v. State, 76 So. 904.
evidence, so that it may be determined whether
it was properly excluded, or whether there was
an abuse of discretion in excluding it.-Morasso
v. State, 76 So. 777.

1044 (Ala.App.) Where counsel made no mo-
tion to exclude answer in case tried by the
court, held. question would not be reviewed.
Putnam v. State, 76 So. 408.

1122(3) (Fla.) Where charges are attacked
as inapplicable to the evidence, evidence adduc-
ed must be contained in the bill of exceptions.-
McKinney v. State, 76 So. 333.

1054(1) (Fla.) When objection to question
to a witness at trial is overruled, an exception
should be taken to ruling in order to secure con-
sideration by Supreme Court of merits of ob- 1122(5) (Ala.App.) Where no bill of excep-
jection. Thomas v. State, 76 So. 780.

1056(1) (Fla.) Requested charges, which
are denied, should be signed by trial judge and

tions has been filed, and oral charge of court
is not set out in record, refusal of requested
written charges will not be reviewed.-Franklin