sale of bonds for less than par and accrued in- | of criminal cases must name the persons to be terest.-Id. tried, and one merely reciting that a number 183 (Ky.) Provision of act of 1914, exempt- of persons were held in jail for trial is insuffiing road improvement bonds from taxation, held cient.-Id. not to affect their validity.-Albright v. lard, 176 S. W. 185.

Bal-65 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under an order of the commissioners' court, authorized by Const. art. 5, § 29, as to the terms of the county court, a term for civil and probate business held, regarding time for filing appeal bond, to end when the next term for criminal business began.-Wells Fargo & Co.'s Express v. Mitchell, 176 S. W. 818.

183 (Ky.) Act April 19, 1873 (Gen. St. 1881, p. 843; Gen. St. 1888, p. 1215), requiring railroad receiving county aid bonds to give bond for faithful application, and to report receipts and disbursements, held to have no application to a county subscription to railroad organized under act approved March 10, 1888 (Acts 1887-88, c. 449).-Stone v. Winn, 176 S. W. 933.

Order of county fiscal court of August 24, 1891, directing trustee of county's railroad aid bonds to hold them until ordered to deliver them, held of no force as against subsequent judicial determination that railroad's successor was entitled to bonds, and requiring trustee, a party to such action, to deliver them.-Id.

190 (Ky.) Where bonds of a county issued in aid of a railroad have been adjudicated to be valid obligations of the county, it is the legal duty of its officers to levy and collect a tax to pay them.-Stone v. Winn, 176 S. W. 933.

VI. ACTIONS.

213 (Tex.Civ.App.) Rev. St. 1911, art. 1366, prohibiting suits against a county without presentation of a claim held not to apply to action brought solely for purpose of binding the county as to the title to property bought by its contractor and mortgaged to plaintiff.-Dallam County v. S. H. Supply Co., 176 S. W. 798.

66 (Ark.) Original entry of adjournment held qualified by subsequent entry, so that an adjourned session was authorized.-Ex parte Baldwin, 176 S. W. 680.

Under the statute, a term may be continued for an adjourned session over beyond a term of court of another county.-Id.

Where court was adjourned on one day, it may on the following day be reconvened; the term not having lapsed, and the adjournment being considered as a mere intermission.-Id.

(D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, Opinions, and Records.

91 (Mo.App.) The Court of Appeals must follow the decision of the Supreme Court that the petition in an action is under Rev. St. 1909, §§ 5426, 5427.-Iba v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 176 S. W. 491.

IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFE-
RIOR JURISDICTION.

170 (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure of petition in the county court to foreclose chattel mortgage to allege the value of the chattels held a fatal defect.-Lusk v. Hardin, 176 S. W. 787.

215 (Tex. Civ.App.) A county made a defendant in a suit in another county, which reconvened, asking for affirmative relief, held to have thereby waived its plea of privilege.-Dal-170 (Tex. Civ.App.) Since interest is not lam County v. S. H. Supply Co., 176 S. W. 798.

COUNTY OPTION.

See Intoxicating Liquors, 14-34.

COURTS.

allowable on personal injury claims prior to the date of judgment unless plaintiff prays for the same, none can be included in the judgment so as to affect the jurisdictional amount.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. White, 176 S. W. 790.

V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDIC-
TION.

See Bankruptcy, 293, 295; Depositaries, 6; Eminent Domain, 181, 182; Equi-202 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 3956, ty; Judges; Judgment, 5, 447, 818; Justices of the Peace; Mandamus, ~100; Partnership, 319; Schools and School Districts, 24, 27; States, 111; Trial, 386, 398; Venue, 5, 22.

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

35 (Ky.) In courts of general jurisdiction it will be presumed, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that the court has jurisdiction to enter judgment.-Potter v. Matney, 176 S.

W. 987. .

the circuit court has jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the probate court setting aside the allowance of plaintiff's claim against the defendant as administrator.-Brockman v. Webb, 176 S. W. 1082.

VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURIS

DICTION.

(A) Grounds of Jurisdiction in General.

207 (Mo.) Under Const. Amend. 1884, § 8, decision of Court of Appeals failing to follow last ruling of Supreme Court held reviewable pers' Ass'n v. Ellison, 176 S. W. 11. by certiorari.-State ex rel. National Newspa

(B) Courts of Particular States. 231 (Mo.) Suit to enjoin defendants from committing irreparable injury to land not exceeding $1,000 in value, in which defendant pleaded that relief would entail greater expense than would result from denying relief sought.

(B) Terms, Vacations, Place and Time of held not to present amount in dispute beyend Holding Court, Courthouses, and

Accommodations.

64 (Ark.) The order of the court, calling a special term for the trial of criminal cases, is jurisdictional, and it must recite every fact required by the statute as a condition to the calling of such term.-Reece v. State, 176 S. W. 165.

A defective order, calling a special term to try criminal cases, cannot be amended nunc pro tunc after the trial of a case so as to give the court jurisdiction over that case.-Id.

An order calling a special term for the trial

jurisdiction of Court of Appeals (Rev. St. 1909, 3937), to which the cause would be transferred. Steinmetz v. Federal Lead Co., 176 S. W. 1049.

231 (Mo.App.) A suit to enforce compliance with building restrictive covenants does not involve directly title to land within the Constitution, and the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction.-State ex rel. Shiek v. McElhinney, 176 S. W. 292.

231 (Mo.App.) A suit for a delinquent drainage tax, involving the construction of Rev. St. 1909, §§ 5578-5635, will be transferred from

the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, un-134 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a
der Const. art. 6, § 12, giving the latter court
jurisdiction of revenue cases.-State ex rel. and
to Use of Douglass v. Redman, 176 S. W. 714.

247 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1589, cl. 3, court held
to have no jurisdiction of appeal in action
commenced in justice court on note for $100,
with no stipulation for attorneys' fees.-Kelley
v. Audra Lodge No. 438, Fraternal Union of
America, 176 Š. W. 784.

COVENANTS.

See Evidence, 442.

COVERTURE.

See Husband and Wife.

CREDIBILITY.

See Witnesses, 379-405.

CRIMINAL LAW.

for

prosecution
murder, an affidavit attacking the means of
knowledge of affiants in a motion for a change
of venue, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 628,
633, held to raise an issue requiring the intro-
duction of evidence.-Barnett v. State, 176 S.

W. 580.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence on a
motion for a change of venue held to show that
a combination of influential persons, whereby
a fair trial would be prevented, did not exist.
-Id.

139 (Ky.) A county seat connected with a
county of the witness' residence by a railroad is
a proper place to which to change the venue,
though farther away than other county seats
not so connected.-Tolliver v. Commonwealth,
176 S. W. 1190.

Where objection is made to the county to
which the venue of a criminal prosecution is
proposed to be changed, the court may hear
proof by both parties, or may act on its own
personal knowledge.-Id.

The selection of the county to which the venue
of a criminal case shall be tried is within the
court's discretion so long as the requirements
of Ky. St. § 1109, are observed, and will be
reviewed only for abuse of discretion.-Id.

VII. FORMER JEOPARDY.

See Animals, 45; Assault and Battery,
91; Banks and Banking, 62; Burglary;
Chattel Mortgages, 234; Constitutional
Law, 87; Elections, 329; Food,
6; Forgery; Homicide; Indictment and In-
formation; Injunction, 102; Intoxicating192 (Tex. Cr. A p p.) Notwithstanding the
Liquors, 146-238; Larceny; Lewdness;
Obstructing Justice; Prostitution; Rape;
Receiving Stolen Goods.

I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF
CRIME AND DEFENSES
IN GENERAL.

13 (Ark.) Kirby's Dig. § 1892, denouncing
the offense of poisoning animals, held not in-
valid because further providing for the assess-
ment by the jury trying the criminal prosecu-
tion of the damages.-Hankins v. State, 176 S.
W. 691.

IV. JURISDICTION.

84 (Ark.) Acts 1909, p. 888, giving the Ar-
kansas courts criminal jurisdiction over the ter-
ritory within the banks of the Mississippi riv-
er, did not become effective because of the exist-
ence of Shannon's Tennessee Code, § 84.-
Means v. State, 176 S. W. 309.

change in the law, accused, whose conviction
for murder in the second degree was reversed,

may thereafter be convicted of murder based on
implied malice.-Eads v. State, 176 S. W. 574.

196 (Tex.Cr.App.) That accused was first
indicted for ordinary burglary held not to pre-
clude a subsequent prosecution for burglary of
a private residence at night.-Curtis v. State,
176 S. W. 559.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT,
AFFIDAVIT, WARRANT, EX-
AMINATION, COMMITMENT,
AND SUMMARY TRIAL.
223 (Mo.App.) Preliminary examinations are
required only in cases of felony.-State v.
Teague, 176 S. W. 250.

(A) Judicial

X. EVIDENCE.

Notice, Presumptions,
Burden of Proof.

and

97 (Ark.) In the absence of a special stat-
ute, the Arkansas courts have no jurisdiction 304 (Ark.) The Arkansas Supreme Court
over a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating judicially knows that Acts 1909, p. 888, is more
liquors on an island on the east side of the recent than Shannon's Tennessee Code, § 84.
middle of the main channel of the Mississippi-Means v. State, 176 S. W. 309.
river.--Means v. State, 176 S. W. 309.

V. VENUE.

335 (Ark.) The state has the burden of
proving that the crime was committed within
the jurisdiction of the court.-Means v. State,
176 S. W. 309.

(A) Place of Bringing Prosecution.
112 (Ark.) Defendants, stealing a cow in (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Ac-
cused.
M. county and transporting her into W. county,

held open to prosecution for larceny in the lat-371 (Ky.) In a prosecution under Ky. St.
ter county.-State v. Alexander, 176 S. W. 315. § 1186, for making false entries in the books of
112 (Tex.Cr.App.) Code Cr. Proc. 1911, a bank, evidence that accused had previously
art. 248, gives the court of the county in which made false entries to cover up his overdrafts
a theft occurred jurisdiction over the offense of held admissible to show intent.-Head v. Com-
receiving stolen goods, though accused lived monwealth, 176 S. W. 1162.
and received the goods in another county.~
Mooney v. State, 176 S. W. 52.

(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra-

tive Evidence.

398 (Tex.Cr.App.) The record in the case
is the best evidence of an acquittal of crime;
but, since there was no record where the grand
jury failed to indict, oral testimony was admis-
sible to prove that fact.-Ghent v. State, 176
S. W. 566.

(F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear-

say.

134 (Ky.) An affidavit objecting to the coun-
ty to which the venue of prosecution for murder 419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence that the
was changed, held not to show that accused
could not have a fair trial in that county.-Tol-

wife of defendant in a murder trial pointed out
the relative position of parties on the scene of

plans were made, held admissible.-Barnett v. | 763, 764 (Tex.Cr.App.) A charge held not
State, 176 S. W. 580.
erroneous as requiring the jury to find that de-
419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of
ceased actually made threats.-Eads v. State,
mon talk and rumor that knife was found 176 S. W. 574.
where difficulty occurred held hearsay and in-
admissible to show that claim of self-defense (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency
was not a fabrication.-Blalock v. State, 176770 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court in its charge

507 (Tex.Cr.App.) Person agreeing with ac-
cused and deceased to say nothing about fatal800 (Mo.App.) Where, on trial for lewd-
blow, then believing that deceased was
fatally injured, held not an accomplice, and his ness, the jury could not have misunderstood the
testimony did not require corroboration.-Bla- meaning of "open and gross" under instructions
lock v. State, 176 S. W. 725.
given, it was not error to refuse a charge detin-
ing the words.-State v. Pedigo, 176 S. W. 556.

(L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination 814 (Ark.) An instruction on a trial for vi-
or at Former Trial.

XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL
AND IN ARREST.

954 (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for a new trial
should always contain each ground relied upon,
that the trial court may have the chance to
correct its own error, if any has been commit-
pro-957 (Tex.Cr.App.) The denial of a new trial
ted.-Brown v. State, 176 S. W. 50.
sought on the ground that the jury had received
information other than from the evidence, held
proper.-Richardson v. State, 176 S. W. 731.

1043 (Tex.Cr.App.) The admission of evi-1166 (Tex.Cr.App.) Overruling of continudence cannot be held erroneous on a ground not ance for absence of testimony bearing only on raised below.-Eads v. State, 176 S. W. 574. issue of manslaughter was not erroneous, where accused was found guilty of manslaughter in the lowest degree.-Egbert v. State, 176 S. W. 560.

1056 (Tex.Cr.App.) Failure to submit issue as to justification for homicide in preventing theft at night held not reversible error, in the absence of an exception at the trial.-Blalock v. State, 176 S. W. 725.

1167 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in refusing to quash the first count of an indictment, where accused was found guilty under the second count, charging an offense, held not prejudicial.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec--Smith v. State, 176 S. W. 49.

ord.

1170 (Tex.Cr.App.) The exclusion of a re1090 (Ark.) In the absence of a bill of ex-porter's write-up of a burglary held not ground ceptions setting forth the testimony upon which for reversal where the reporter testified and a verdict of not guilty was directed, appellate contradicted the testimony of the owner, which court cannot determine whether court below it was claimed differed from his original accommitted error.-State v. Chapman, 176 S. W. count.-Curtis v. State, 176 S. W. 559. 315.

1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal of requested charges is not reviewable, where accused took no bill of exceptions.-Mooney v. State, 176 S. W. 52.

1171 (Tex.Cr.App.) Guilt being clearly established, improper argument of counsel held not reversible.-Mooney v. State, 176 S. W. 52. Court will not reverse conviction because of improper argument of the prosecuting attorney, unless the rights of accused were prejudiced. -Id.

1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exception not presented to the trial court until more than 100 days after adjournment, cannot be con-1173 (Mo.App.) In a prosecution for felosidered.-Matthews v. State, 176 S. W. 48. nious assault, error in refusing an instruction to acquit defendant of a felonious assault was harmless, where he was merely convicted of common assault.-State v. Teague, 176 S. W. 250. XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME.

1092 (Tex. Cr.App.) Accused refusing to accept judge's qualification to a bill of exceptions must procure a bystander's bill.-Mooney v. State, 176 S. W. 52.

1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions, filed after the expiration of the term, held too late.-Becker v. State, 176 S. W. 566.

1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) Without a statement of facts, it cannot, on appeal, be determined whether an issue was raised, so as to render the court's failure to submit it erroneous.Matthews v. State, 176 S. W. 48.

1099 (Tex. Cr.App.) Statements of fact not presented to the trial court until more than 100 days after adjournment cannot be considered.Matthews v. State, 176 S. W. 48.

1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) A statement of facts, (Mo.App.) A crop yearly planted and raisfiled after the expiration of the term, held too ed may be treated as a personal chattel.-Davis late.-Becker v. State, 176 S. W. 566. v. Cramer, 176 S. W. 468.

1116 (Mo.App.) Where the record contained no evidence on the matter, the denial of a motion to abate information because accused had no preliminary examination cannot be held error on appeal.-State v. Teague, 176 S. W. 250.

3 (Mo.App.) A vendor conveying land and assigning an interest in a growing crop held to have asserted ownership of an interest in the crop and to warrant title thereto.-Davis v. Cramer, 176 S. W. 468.

Where a warranty is contained in a written assignment of an interest in crops, the construction of the warranty is for the court.-Id.

5 (Mo.App.) A deed to land and an assignment of an interest in crops growing thereon, executed at the same time, constitute one transaction, and the deed applies only to the land.Davis v. Cramer, 176 S. W. 468.

6 (Mo.App.) A sale of land in possession of a tenant, and subject to the tenancy, does not pass a growing crop, and, in the absence of the deed from the record, the court will presume that it reserved the crop.-Davis v. Cramer, 176 S. W. 468.

CROSSINGS.

1144 (Tex.Cr.App.) Newly discovered evidence cannot, in the absence of a statement of facts, be held on appeal ground for new trial, See Railroads, 102, 316–351. as it must be presumed in the support of the denial that the evidence was not admissible or was cumulative.-Richardson v. State, 176 S. W. 731.

1150 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial of change of venue on grounds specified in Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 628, will not be disturbed, where the grounds were controverted by the state, unless the court abused its discretion.-Mooney v. State, 176 S. W. 52.

1150 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court's refusal to grant a change of venue does not require a reversal, unless clearly an abuse of discretion.Barnett v. State, 176 S. W. 580.

1165 (Tex.Cr.App.) The submission of an issue in favor of accused is not error of which he may take advantage.-Barnett v. State, 176 S.

CUSTODY.

See Guardian and Ward, 29; Parent and
Child, 2.

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

See Appeal and Error,
Agent, 20.

1050; Principal and

5 (Ark.) Proof of the custom of a particular bank is not sufficient to establish a general custom, and the particular custom is not binding on one who had no notice thereof.-Calhoun v. Ainsworth, 176 S. W. 316.

19 (Mo.App.) A seller offering no proof of custom of trade may not complain of exclusion

iar with the custom of trade.-Woldert Grocery held not excessive.-Central Kentucky Natural Co. v. Pillman, 176 S. W. 457. Gas Co. v. Salyer, 176 S. W. 183.

132 (Mo.App.) Verdict of $7,500 in servant's action for injury to his eye from the splashing of caustic liquids used in nitric acid 38;thetic injury to other eye, held not excessive. plant, causing excruciating pain and sympaWhelan v. United Zinc & Chemical Co., 176 S. W. 704.

(B) Aggravation, Mitigation, and Reduc-157 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for breach of contract, defendant cannot under a general denial claim that plaintiff did not attempt to minimize his damages.-World's Special Films Corporation v. Fichtenberg, 176 S. W. 733.