« 이전계속 »
Pago State v. Shea (Okl.)..
862 Territory, Gibbons v. (Okl. Cr. App.)... 121 State v. Sheeks (Wash.). 859 Territory, Kimball v. (Ariz.).
70 State, Şillix v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 1133 Territory, Levy v. (Ariz.).
415 State v. Smails (Wash.) 82 Terry v, Creed (Okl.).
. 1022 State, Smith v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
611 Thomas, Robertson Mortg. Co. v. (Wash.) 312 State, Smith v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
.1133 Thomas Haverty Co., Bank of Arizona v. State, Speece v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
73 State, Starr v. (Okl. Cr. App.): 356 Thompson, Burt v. (Okl.).
.1016 State, Stuart v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1026 Thompson. McCants v. (Okl.).
600 State v. Superior Court for Okanogan Thompson v. Seek (Kan.)
397 County (Wash.).
845 Thompson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). .1011 State v. Superior Court of King County Thorp v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
609 (Wash.) 307 Thurston, Kreymborg v. (Wash.).
77 State, Talley v., two cases (Okl. Cr. App.) 603 Times-Mirror Co. y. Superior Court of Los State v. Tenney (Wash.). . 1080 Angeles County (Cal. App.)..
248 State, Thompson v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1011 Tinker v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
473 State, Thorp v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
609 Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lusk (Cal. App.) 53 State, Tinker v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 473 Titus, Smith v. (Ariz.).
.1135 State y. Truskett (Kan.)....
575 Tolbert, International Bank & Trust Co. v. State, Tucker v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1133 (Okl.)
601 State, Tucker v. (Okl. Cr. App.). ..1134 Toomer, Jefferson v. (Okl.).
793 State, Tunnard v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 603 Town of Littleton, Addington v. (Colo.)
896 State, Turner v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1134 Town of Sebastopol, Shaw v. (Cal.). 213 State, Waite v. (Okl. Cr. App.)... .1134 Township of Benton, Atchison County, State, Waits v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
592 State, Waldock v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1134 Trefts v. McDougald (Cal. App.).
655 State, Ward v. (Okl. Cr. App.). ..1134 Truax, Brown v. (Or.).
597 State, Warren v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
812 Truskett, State v. (Kan.). State, Washington Dredging & Improve Tucker v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). .1133 ment Co. v. (Wash.).. .1135 Tucker v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
.1134 State, Wells Fargo & Co. v. (Okl.). ..1124 Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. State, Williams v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 379 Goulding (Ariz.).
.1136 State, Willis v. (Okl. Cr. App.). ..1134 Tunnard v. State (Okl. Çr. App.).
603 State, Wilson v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
819 | Tunnel Mining & Leasing Co. v. Cooper State, Winn v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 605 (Colo.)
901 State, Wishard v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 796 Turley v. Hayes & Shirk (Okl.).
769 Stepp v. Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co. Turner v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).. .1134 (Okl.)
..1012 Turnham v. Calumet & 0. Min. Co. (Or.) 157 Stewart v. Austin (Colo.).
516 Stinchcomb v. Myers (Okl.). 602 Underwood v. Fosha (Kan.).
979 Stock Oil Co., Lobell v. (Wyo.).
69 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co, Stone v. Sapulpa (Okl.). .1113 Brittania Min. Co. v. (Mont.).
46 Strand v. Griffith (Wash.).
512 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Straver, Arthur Irr. Co. v. (Colo.).
724 Newton (Colo.). Stringham, Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. United States, Havill v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .. 119 (Utah)
967 United States, Paris v. (Okl. Cr. App.).... 373 Strosnider, Quilici v. (Nev.).
177 Stuart v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). .1026 Valley Dew Distilling Co. v. Messner Sullivan, Murray Show Case & Fixture Co. (Colo.)
531 v. (Cal. App.)
259 Van Arsdale-Osborne Brokerage Co. v. Superior Court, Alameda County, Edwards Cooper (Okl.)......
779 v. (Cal.). 649 Vandecar, Gaines v. (Or.).
721 Superior Court for Okanogan County, State Vandecar, Gaines v. (Or.)..
.1122 v. (Wash.). ...
845 Vanderberg, Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. (Okl.). . 782 Superior Court of Alameda County, Mous Vietzen v. Otis (Wash.)...
858 nier v. (Cal.).
221 Superior Court of City and County of San Waite v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)... .1134 Francisco, Kraker v. (Cal. App.). 663 Waits v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
607 Superior Court of King County, State v. Wakefield, Kuck v. (Or.).
307 Waldock 'v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). .1134 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Walker v. Beaumont Land & Water Co. Times-Mirror Co. v. (Cal. App.).
766 Superior Court of Sacramento County,
Walker, Love v. (Or.).
296 Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Cal. App.). .1091 | Ward v. Richards (Okl.)..
791 Superior Court of Sacramento County, Ward v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)...
1134 Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Cal.). .1100 Warren v. Kearney (Wash.).
739 Sutton v. Heinzle (Kan.)..: 560 Warren v. State (Okì. Cr. App.).
812 Sutton, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Okl.). .1124 Washington Dredging & Improvement Co. Sweatt, Everett v. (Wash.).
.1135 Sweigert, Edwards v. (Cal. App.).
256 Washington Nav. Co., Dean v. (Or.). 284 Swett-Davenport Lumber Co. v. Quartararo
Washington Water Power Co., Gibbert v. (Cal. App.).....,
924 Swift v. Coulter (Okl.).
871 Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters S. Winston & Sons, Bretch Bros. v. (Oki.) 795 (Idaho)
682 Sylvester v. Olson (Wash.).
175 Washoe Copper Co. v. Junila (Mont.). 917 Synhorst, Oliver v. (Or.)....
594 | Waters, Washington Water Power Co. v. (Idaho)
682 Taggart v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. Weare v. Baker (Mont.).
534 Weatherall v. Weatherall (Wash.). .1078 Talley, Robertson v. (Kan.). 640 | Weber v. Whidden (Wash.).
.1046 Talley v. State, two cases (Okl. Cr. App.).. 603 Weldon v. Rogers (Cal.).
464 Taylor v. Abbott (Kan.). 979 Wells, Johnson v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
375 Templeton v. Lloyd (Or.). . 1067 Wells Fargo Co., Rick v. (Utah).
991 Templeton v. Lloyd (Or.).
..1068 Wells Fargo & Co. v. State (Okl.). .......1124
Page Western Union Tel. Co. v. Choteau (Okl.) 879 Winston & Sons, Bretch Bros. v. (Okl.). .. 795 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hollis (Okl.).. 774 Wishard v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
796 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Superior Court Wolfrom, People v. (Cal. App.)..
. 1088 of Sacramento County (Cal. App.). .. .. .1091 Wollenberg, Chauncey v. (Or.).
419 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Superior Court Wong Fung Hing v. San Francisco Relief of Sacramento County (Cal.). .....1100 & Red Cross Funds (Cal. App.)
331 Wheeler, Wilson v. (Okl.). 1117 Woods, Bunch v. (Ariz.).
76 Whidden, Weber v. (Wash.). ..1046 Worthington y. Crapser (Wash.).
849 Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co., Stepp v.
Wrble, Parsons v. (Idaho).
8 (Okl.) .1012 Wrble, Parsons v. (Idaho).
227 Wilkins, Ex parte (Okl. Cr. App.). .1118 Wright, Cordano v. (Cal.). Willard Oil Co. v. Riley (Okl.).
W. $. Ray Mfg. Co., Cook v. (Cal.). 318 Williams, Bedolla v. (Cal. App.). 747 Wyatt, Hays v. (Idaho).
13 Williams, Booth v. (Kan.)..
Wyoming Cent. Irr.Co. v. Burroughs Williams v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).
434 Willis v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). .....1134 Yarbrough, Snider v. (Mont.).
411 Wills v. George Palmer Lumber Co. (Or.).. 417 Yosemite Gold Min. & Mill. Co., Evalina Wilson, Moore v. (Kan.). 548 Gold Min. Co. v. (Cal. App.).
946 Wilson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). 819 Young, Lutkens v. (Wash.)..
. 1038 Wilson v. Wheeler (Okl.)
..1117 Wingard, Buckner y. (Kan.).
636 Zalondek, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Okl.) 867 Wim v. State (Okl, Or. App.). 605 Zeitlow v. Zeitlow (Kan.)..
(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.)
(19 Idaho, 692)
him; and it is likewise competent to show that STATE V. GRUBER.
the defendant was in impecunious and necessi
tous circumstances prior to the time of the (Supreme Court of Idaho. April 19, 1911.)
homicide, and that he had money soon there(Syllabus by the Court.)
after, or that he had property or valuables soon
after the homicide which had belonged to the 1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION ($ 128*)- deceased. JOINDER OF OFFENSES. Under the provisions of section 7681, Rev. Cent. Dig. $$ 359-371; Dec. Dig. & 174.*]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Homicide, Codes, an indictment or information must charge but one offense, but the same offense may be set 5. HOMICIDE ($_142*)-CRIMINAL LAW (8 628*) forth in different forms under different counts.
-MURDER — TRIAL-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIand, where the offense may be committed by the
DENCE. use of different means, the means may be al
Certain evidence as to the identification of leged in the alternative in the same count.
the watch claimed to have been taken from the [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Indictment witness in identifying handwriting, examined,
body of the deceased, and the evidence of a and Information, Cent. Dig. $$ 403-413; Dec. and held that it was properly admitted. Dig. $ 128.*]
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Homicide, 2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION ($ 128*)- Dec. Dig. $ 142;* Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. $$
JOINDER OF OFFENSES—"MURDER IN FIRST 1409-1411, 1413-1419; Dec. Dig. 8 628.*]
In an information charging murder in the 6. WITNESSES ($ 277*)—CROSS-EXAMINATIONfirst degree, the prosecutor may charge the same
SCOPE. offense in two counts; one count alleging the Under the provisions of section 6079, Rev. murder to have been committed willfully, delib- Codes, a witness may be cross-examined by the erately, and with malice aforethought, and the opposite party "as to any facts stated in his diother count charging that the murder was com- rect examination, or connected therewith." mitted in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpe [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Witnesses, trate, robbery. In the latter case, proof that the Cent. Dig. $8 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. $ 277.*] murder was committed in the perpetration of, 7. WITNESSES (277*)-CROSS-EXAMINATIONor attempt to perpetrate, robbery brings the case within the definition of "murder in the first de
SCOPE. gree," as contained in section 6562, Rev. Codes.
Where the defendant testified to going to a and such proof supplies the place of proof of specified place or city with another, and to deliberation and premeditation.
spending the night with such person, and gave
no further testimony as to his movements, or [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. $$ 403-413 ; Dec. when he left such place, it was not error to per
mit the prosecuting attorney on cross-examinaDig. $ 128.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, to which he and the other party had gone.
tion to ask the defendant when he left the place vol. 5, pp. 4637-4641; vol. 8, p. 7727.)
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Witnesses, 3. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 595*) - CONTINUANCE Cent. Dig. 88 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. $ 277.* í DISCRETION OF COURT.
WITNESSES An application for a continuance in a crim-8. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1186*) inal case is addressed to the sound discretion
($ 277*) — APPEAL - HARMLESS ERROR-ADof the trial court, and there is no abuse of dis
MISSION OF EVIDENCE. cretion in denying such application, where the
Where a defendant became a witness in his party applying fails to show that if the contin own behalf and testified concerning his early uance should be granted he could procure ma- life, and as to his acquaintance with a third terial evidence tending to establish his defense, party, and concerning a trip taken by him and a which he could not reasonably expect to pro party who was afterwards murdered, and made duce, unless such continuance should be granted no reference to any property owned' by the de
ceased, and no mention of a transaction in [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal which 'certain property claimed to have belonged Law, Dec. Dig. $ 595.*]
to the deceased was pawned, it was error for 4. HOMICIDE ($ 174*) - MURDER-TRIAL-AD- the court to allow the prosecuting attorney to MISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.
ask the defendant on cross-examination if he Where an information charges that murder gave a pawn ticket to a third party for certain has been committed in the perpetration of, or of the deceased's property. attempt to perpetrate, robbery, it is proper to [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Criminal show that the deceased had money or valuables Law, Cent. Dig. $$ 3215-3219; Dec. Dig. $ on his person prior to his death, and that his 1186;* Witnesses, Cent. Dig. $$ 925, 979–984; money or other valuables had been taken from | Dec. Dig. $ 277.*1 •For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
9. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 814*)-INSTRUCTIONS- Fred Gruber was convicted of murder, and INSANITY.
he appeals from the judgment and an order It is not error for the trial court to refuse to give an instruction to the jury as to the denying a new trial. Affirmed. law covering the defense of insanity, where there is no evidence introduced on the part of
McBee & La Veine, for appellant. D. C. the defendant tending to show that he was in- McDougall, Atty. Gen., and 0. M. Van Duyn sane at the time of the commission of the of- and J. H. Peterson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for fense.
the State. [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. $ 1821; Dec. Dig. $ 814.*] 10. CRIMINAL LAW (S. 814*)-INSTRUCTIONS
AILSHIE, P. J. The appellant was proseREPUTATION OF ACCUSED.
cuted on information by the county attorney It is not error for the trial court to refuse on the charge of the murder of one John H. to give to the jury an instruction to the effect Billings, and was convicted of murder in that the law presumes that the defendant sustained a good reputation prior to the commis- the first degree and sentenced to be hanged. sion of the alleged offense, where no evidence This appeal is from the judgment and an orhas been introduced touching his character or der denying a motion for a new trial. reputation, and no issue has been made touching his reputation with reference to any trait or
In order to intelligently deal with the quality, or in any respect.
errors assigned, it will be necessary to brief[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal ly state some of the leading facts which Law, Cent. Dig. § 1839; Dec. Dig. $ 814.*]
are disclosed by the record, and on which 11. WITNESSES ($ 277*)-Cross-EXAMINATION the conviction was had. The defendant was OF ACCUSED-SCOPE.
Under the Constitution (section 13, art. 1) an electrician in the employ of a carnival and the statute (section 7357, Rev. Codes), no show company, and he seems to have been person can be compelled in a criminal action generally known by the name of Fred to become a witness against himself, and the George. On about the 3d of December, 1909, court should instruct the jury in a proper case John H. Billings was working at his trade that no presumption can be raised against the defendant by reason of his refusal to testify; as a carpenter in the fair grounds of the but, where the defendant voluntarily submits apple show in Spokane. Defendant was then himself as a witness in his own behalf, be may a young man of the age of about 20 years, be cross-examined by the state, subject to the same rules and regulations governing cross-ex- and was at that time in a poor financial conamination that apply to other witnesses. dition; in fact, he was apparently without
[Ed._Note.- For other cases, see Witnesses, any money. At that time he had in his posCent. Dig. 88 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. & 277.*l session what purported to be a letter from 12. CRIMINAL LAW (3 787*)-NEW TRIAL-IN-a man named Harry George, whom he repreSTRUCTIONS.
sented as owning a chicken ranch in the Where the court permitted the prosecutor to ask a question on cross-examination which neighborhood of Cæur d'Alene City in this was not proper cross-examination, and it ap- state. Billings was a man of the age of pears that the question was one that did not about 45 years, and he had a small sum of prejudice the defendant's rights, and did not prejudice him in any substantial manner, it was money, somewhere perhaps from $35 to $50. not error for the trial court to refuse to in On the latter date, December 3d, at the struct the jury that the defendant had properly solicitation of defendant and for the purpose declined to answer such question, and that his of securing employment, Billings went with refusal to answer should not be construed the defendant to Cour d'Alene City to see against him.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Harry George and secure work on his chicken Law, Dec. Dig. $ 787.*]
ranch. They arrived at Cour d'Alene City 13. CRIMINAL LAW ($_1119*)—APPEAL-RE- and stopped at the Cour d'Alene Inn. Dur
VIEW – CONDUCT OF TRIAL — ARGUMENT OF ing the evening of that day they made a numPROSECUTOR.
ber of inquiries at different residences as to Where the conduct of a prosecutor in mak- the location of the Harry George chicken ing certain statements in the course of his argument to the jury is assigned as error, the de- ranch. They were unsuccessful in locating fendant should set forth in his statement or George, or learning anything of his whereing attorney with sufficient certainty and defi- abouts, and later in the evening they reniteness, together with the circumstances and turned to the hotel, and retired for the night; conditions under which it was made, and the con- both occupying the same room and the same text thereof, to enable this court to determine bed. The next morning they renewed their whether or not the same was prejudicial to any search for Harry George; they went into substantial right of the defendant. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal
the outskirts of the town and beyond on the Law, Cent. Dig. $ 2929; Dec. Dig. $ 1119.*]
east side, and were seen by several persons 14. HOMICIDE ($ 253*)-MURDER-SUFFICIEN- on the forenoon of that day. One witness CY OF EVIDENCE.
testified that they came to her home 242 Evidence in this case examined, and held miles east of Ceur d'Alene at 15 minutes sufficient to justify the verdict and judgment.
past 11 o'clock on the forenoon of December [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Homicide, 4th. This was the last time that the deCent Dig. $8 523-532; Dec. Dig. $ 253.*]
fendant was seen in that vicinity, or in fact Appeal from District Court, Kootenai in the state, on that day. It was also the County; Robert N. Dunn, Judge.
last time, so far as the evidence discloses,