§ 304. It is a matter of common knowledge that all forms of paper money are commonly called "bills."-Long v. State (Ark.) 961. § 304. Judicial notice will be taken of the fact of there being two district courts in a county.-Thomas v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1030. §304. The Court of Criminal Appeals judicially knows the geography of the country, and that Panola county lies north of and adjoining Shelby county.-Bussey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1035. 317. The state was not entitled to show as against accused that a codefendant previously tried had failed to introduce certain testimony. -Deneaner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 201. § 322. It must be assumed that the report of the jury commissioners was filed in the .office of the clerk of court and properly indorsed as required by statute, in absence of averment or showing to the contrary.-Balden v. State (Tenn.) 134. § 391. Testimony of the mother of accused as to his physical condition, owing to illness, as explaining why he did not take the stand, held properly excluded.-Joseph v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 171. § 391. In a prosecution for murder, testimony of physicians as to having attended defendant when he was suffering from a severe attack of pneumonia was inadmissible.-Joseph v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 171. § 392. In a prosecution for manslaughter, held error to allow the district attorney to elicit certain facts from accused on cross-examination.-Askew v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1037. $396. Where a part of a conversation with accused has been admitted in evidence, the adverse party may, under White's Ann. Code Cr. Carter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215. Proc. art. 791, prove the entire conversation. (E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra tive Evidence. § 400. In view of Code Cr. Proc. 1895, arts. 37, 630, testimony of one other than the prose (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, cuting attorney as to why former prosecutions and Res Gestæ. § 338. In a prosecution for homicide, a motion of the district attorney dismissing the indictment as to persons other than accused held inadmissible in evidence.-Figaroa v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 193. § 354. Where accused relied on insanity, the inquest of lunacy held admissible.-Smedley v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 485. 354. On an issue as to insanity of accused, evidence as to his general reputation was inadmissible.-Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 548. § 363. In a burglary case, certain evidence held admissible as part of the res gestæ.-Kubacak v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 836. § 364. In a trial for burglary, a statement made by accused soon after he was shot down by prosecuting witness held admissible as a res gestæ statement.-Bronson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 175. § 364. A res gestæ statement made by accused was admissible as such, notwithstanding it was inadmissible as a confession or admission.-Bronson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 175. of accused had been dismissed held inadmissi ble.-Diseren v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1038. § 404. On a trial for homicide the clothing worn by a witness shot at the time of the homicide held relevant.-Milo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1025. (F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear say. $ 417. On a trial for larceny, the act of a constable in watching the property alleged to have been stolen held inadmissible.-Richards v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 823. § 364. Certain statements made by defend-idence as to prosecution of another person who ant and his companions 15 minutes after the shooting held inadmissible as res gestæ.-Deneaner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 201. § 366. A statement of deceased, written after he was wounded. held admissible in a prosecution for his murder as part of the res gesta on proof that it was written directly after he was wounded.-Figaroa v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 193. § 366. Statements by the person injured on a trial for homicide held admissible as a part of the res gestæ.-Wynne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 213. $368. Statements by third person on a trial for homicide held admissible as a part of the res gestæ.-Wynne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 213. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused. Impeachment of accused as witness by proving accusation or conviction of other crime, see Witnesses, § 345. (D) Materiality and Competency in General. § 386. On a trial for forgery of a time check for services for a railroad, evidence of a conversation over the telephone with one who represented himself to be accused, relating to the cashing of the check, held admissible.Evans v. State (Ark.) 743. §§ 419, 420. In a prosecution for murder, evwas indicted with accused, but against whom the indictment was subsequently dismissed, showing the indictment of the other person for another offense, held inadmissible.-Figaroa v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 193. (G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators and Codefendants. § 422. Where a conspiracy has been formed, (H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion § 433. In a prosecution for killing one who was a rival candidate of accused for the nom ination to the Legislature, held error to admit in evidence a telegram sent by accused, marked so as to indicate that it was sent free, as evidence of that fact on the question of accused's breach of his promise in a previous campaign not to receive corporate favors, which promise decedent charged he had broken.-Gaines v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 181. (I) Opinion Evidence. 451. One on trial for seduction may not testify that from a conversation had with third persons he inferred that they had had intercourse with prosecutrix.-Carter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215. (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Codefendants. Corroboration of testimony of female in prosecution for seduction, see Seduction, § 46. $507. Purchasers of intoxicating liquors are not accomplices in violating the law with the seller thereof.-Trinkle v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1060. (K) Confessions. Retroactive operation of laws relating to confessions, see Statutes, § 267. § 518. In a trial for burglary, a confession of accused, made without warning, while he was in the actual custody of prosecuting witness, held inadmissible.-Bronson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 175. $529. A confession reduced to writing by a justice of the peace and sworn to by accused is admissible when made voluntarily.-Harshaw v. State (Ark.) 745. $535. Under Kirby's Dig. § 2385, the corpus delicti need not be established by evidence entirely independent of the confession before the confession is admissible. Harshaw v. State (Ark.) 745. $535. In a prosecution for infanticide, evidence in addition to defendant's confession held insufficient to establish the corpus delicti.-Ellison v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 542. (L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination or at Former Trial. Competency to impeach witness by showing inconsistent statements, see Witnesses, § 393. (M) Weight and Sufficiency. Credibility, impeachment, corroboration, and contradiction of witnesses, see Witnesses, §§ 318-404. In particular criminal prosecutions. See Burglary, & 41; Disorderly House, § 17; Gaming, 98; Homicide, $8 253, 254; Lar ceny, 55; Lewdness, § 10; Seduction, §§ 45, 46. For going on highway while ill with smallpox, see Health, § 41. For violation of quarantine regulations, see Animals, § 36. Violations of liquor laws, see Intoxicating Liquors, § 236. $564. The venue must be proved by direct testimony or by such circumstances that the same may be inferred.-State v. Alford (Mo. App.) 109. $570. There was no error in charging that insanity must be clearly proved to authorize the jury to find that question in favor of accused.-Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 548. XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINUANCE. 8 590. The refusal to grant a continuance on the ground of the unpreparedness of accused for trial held erroneous.-Smedley v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 485. § 595. On a trial for theft, a continuance will not be granted, where absent witnesses were only expected to prove defendant's good character for honesty.-Bronson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 175. § 597. A continuance for an absent witness held properly denied.-Mays v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 546. § 603. An affidavit for a continuance held insufficient to put the court in error for denying it in the exercise of discretion vested by Cr. Code Prac. § 189.-Ferrell v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 162. § 603. An application for a continuance on the ground of absence of a witness, which does not show that it was not made for delay, is properly denied.-Wynne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 213. § 603. An application for a continuance for absence of a witness held properly refused for failure to state the facts to which the witness would testify.-Hinman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221. § 603. An application for a continuance held properly refused because of the failure to sufficiently specify the facts to which the witness would testify.-Hinman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221. § 603. An application for a continuance for an absent witness in a criminal case held not sufficient to show diligence.-Smalley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 225. § 603. In a prosecution for rape, an application for a continuance held insufficient.-Bussey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1035. XII. TRIAL. Competency of and challenge to jurors, see Jury, $$ 95, 97. Summoning attendance, discharge, and compensation of jurors, see Jury, §§ 58, 70. In particular criminal prosecutions. See Abduction, § 16; Burglary. §§ 45, 46; Homicide, §§ 286-309; Rape, § 59; Seduction, $ 50. For violation of quarantine regulations, see Animals, § 36. Violations of liquor laws, see Intoxicating Liquors, $238, 239. (A) Preliminary Proceedings. § 624. Where the jury was impaneled to try a special issue of insanity, which was afterwards withdrawn and tried under the general plea of not guilty by the same jury, held not to present a matter for which a conviction should be reversed.-Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 548. (B) Course and Conduct of Trial in. General. $656. The remark of the court on overruling objections to questions put to a witness on redirect examination held not a comment on the weight of the evidence, in violation of the statute.-Milo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1025. (C) Reception of Evidence. Examination of witnesses, see Witnesses, §§ 240269. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. § 706. An act of the prosecuting attorney § 596. A continuance on the ground of ab-held misconduct necessitating a reversal.-May sence of a witness, whose testimony will be of v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 832. impeaching character only, is properly denied. -Wynne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 213. § 7212. The mere absence of witnesses from a trial should not be used against an accused person, unless he was instrumental in some (F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen- In particular criminal prosecutions. See Burglary, § 45. For failure to provide closet at railroad station, For violation of quarantine regulations, see Violations of liquor laws, see Intoxicating Liq- § 741. Where there is any evidence to con- the case is for the jury.-Ferrell v. Common- § 742. The credibility of witnesses is for the § 742. In a prosecution for the bribery of a § 761. An instruction held erroneous as as- § 761. On a trial for larceny, an instruction § 763, 764. An instruction as to the effect of §§ 763, 764. In a prosecution for homicide, 201. (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency In particular criminal prosecutions. § 783. An instruction as to the effect of evi- § 784. An instruction on circumstantial evi- § 784. An instruction as to circumstantial ev- § 784. A court is not required to charge on § 789. An instruction in a homicide case held § 792. A charge held to sufficiently submit $ 792. In a prosecution for violation of the $792. A charge on principals held objection- § 807. On a trial for violating the local op- § 810. On a trial for selling intoxicating liq- fendant's employ sold liquors in quantities less § 814. In a burglary case, a charge held prop- tial evidence held proper.-Bass v. State (Tex. § 814. A charge in a prosecution for burg- § 822. The instructions in a criminal case (H) Requests for Instructions. § 824. Failure of the court to instruct as to $825. The court having properly defined a § 825. Where the instructions submitted the $829. Accused was not prejudiced by the § 829. It was not error to refuse a special § 829. A requested charge held properly re- § 858. On a trial for forgery, the court held § 863. In a prosecution for forgery in passing XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL § 912. Accused held entitled to a new trial § 917. Under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. § 923. What a juror said when leaving for taken on the jury held not to indicate prejudice, | vantage of by exceptions saved in the ordinary § 925. The fact that a conviction was brought way, notwithstanding Laws 1901, p. 140 (Ann. § 1056. Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 723, does $ 1059. Exceptions presented in a motion for 823. § 930. The mere fact that, on a trial for § 954. A motion for a new trial held too gen- $ 959. The right of a county attorney to con- XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and $1020. The Court of Criminal Appeals held § 1023. Under Cr. Code Prac. § 281, an or- § 1024. The state cannot appeal from a judg- 1024. The state may not appeal from an See Homicide, §§ 325-340. $1036. Accused cannot complain on appeal §1037. A request for a charge to disregard § 1038. Criticisms of the charge not called $ 1038. The court will not review errors of 1056. § 1043. An objection to the admission of cer- § 1053. Refusal to allow a challenge of a ju- § 1056. The failure to charge on a question (C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause, the jurisdiction of the lower court stated, under (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec- Disobedience to subpoena to testify on settle- § 1087. Under Acts 30th Leg. c. 24, § 5, held § 1090. Where the certificate of the clerk to § 1090. In absence of a bill of exceptions, § 1090. In absence of a bill of exceptions and § 1090. In the absence of a statement of § 1090. The failure in the charge to apply § 1090. Where the record on a criminal ap- V. § 1091. On a trial for seduction, the allow- witness cannot be considered, if it does not support of the reputation of a state's witness § 1092. Where the hearing of a motion for a | abused its discretion.-State v. Armstrong (Mo. new trial was continued to the succeeding term, App.) 93. during which it was determined and 30 days granted to file a bill of exceptions, the filing of the bill within that time held not authorized by Acts 1899, c. 40.-Rinehart v. State (Tenn.) 445. $1092. The rule that a bill of exceptions filed after the close of the term is too late was modified by Acts_1899, c. 275, § 1.—Rinehart v. State (Tenn.) 445. § 1092. Where accused is not satisfied with the bill of exceptions, as qualified by the court, he should attack it by bystanders.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 551. § 1092. Bills of exceptions taken by accused not signed by the judge will not be considered.Boswell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 820. § 1094. In absence of a bill of exceptions, or a ground in the motion for new trial urging defects in a charge, a conviction cannot be reversed therefor.-Joseph v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 171. § 1097. One prosecuting his appeal in a criminal case has, under the statute, a right to a statement of facts certified as required by law and sent up with the record.-Shaffer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 207. § 1099. A statement of acts not approved and signed by the trial judge cannot be considered on appeal.-Shaffer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 206. § 1099. The court on appeal will reverse a conviction where accused was deprived, without his fault, of a statement of acts.-Shaffer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 206. § 1099. The court on appeal held required to reverse a judgment of conviction, where accused was deprived without his fault of a statement of facts.-Shaffer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 207. § 1099. A statement of facts on appeal will not be considered when not filed within the time allowed.-Ewing v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 835. § 1124. A general bill of exceptions to the denial of a new trial held not to bring up for review the denial of a continuance.-Milo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1025. (F) Dismissal, Hearing, and Rehearing. § 1132. The hearing of an appeal in a homicide case held not to be advanced for hearing by the Court of Criminal Appeals.-Gaines v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 181. § 1133. The rule that matters not raised by counsel in their brief on the submission of a case will not be considered on a petition for rehearing does not apply in felony cases.-Quertermous v. State (Ark.) 951. (G) Review. In prosecutions for homicide, see Homicide, §§ 338, 340. § 1134. The issue made by the motion of the state for rehearing and certiorari held jurisdictional and within the power of the court to determine.-May v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 832. § 1137. Accused cannot complain of invited error resulting from the court giving an instruction at his request.-Wynne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 213. § 1149. The action of the trial court in granting or refusing a bill of particulars is reviewable on appeal and subject to review where the trial court abused its discretion.-Smedley v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 485. § 1151. Under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 597, subd. 6, refusal of a new trial on the ground that an application for continuance was improperly overruled will not be revised, unless an abuse of discretion appears.-Bronson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 175. § 1151. The granting of a continuance to procure absent witnesses is peculiarly within the trial court's discretion, and the appellate court will not interfere, in absence of a clear. abuse thereof.-Trinkle v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1060. § 1159. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Quertermous v. State (Ark.) 951: Smith v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 790; State v. Helton (Mo. App.) 595; Carter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215; Long v. Same (Tex. Cr. App.) 551; Johnson v. Same (Tex. Cr. App.) 559. nect accused with the commission of the crime, § 1159. Where there is any evidence to conthe verdict will not be disturbed on appeal, unless flagrantly against the evidence.-Ferrell v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 162. Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to re§ 1159. Under Cr. Code Prac. & 340, the verse a conviction for lack of evidence, unless there is no evidence of guilt.-Pinkston v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 493. § 1159. Where the question whether accused intended to sell whisky or not was for the jury, and the issue was fairly presented, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.-McNary v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 180. § 1159. The credibility of a state's witness was for the jury in the trial court.-Trinkle v. State (Tex. Čr. App.) 1060. § 1160. Where there is evidence in the record to sustain the verdict, the appellate court will not, merely because of impeaching testimony, set aside the action of the trial court, affirming a verdict assessing defendant's guilt.Pratt v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 827. error which is not prejudicial.-James v. State (Ark.) § 1163. An instruction improperly commenting on the evidence is ground for reversal.State v. Fleetwood (Mo. App.) 934. fied held not available where peremptory chal§ 1163. The error in holding a juror qualilenges were not exhausted.-Bass v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1020. § 1163. The bill of exceptions complaining of the admission of evidence should exemplify the record sufficiently to show how the introduction of the evidence could prejudice accused.-Milo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1025. § 1166. That the report of jury commissioners, giving the names of the panel of grand jurors for the term, was not spread upon the minutes of the court, as required by Acts 1901, c. 124, § 5, was a mere irregularity, which could not prejudice an accused.-Balden v. State (Tenn.) 134. § 1166. Denial of a continuance for the absence of a witness held not erroneous.-Hinman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221. § 11662. Where no objectionable juror sat in the case, rulings on challenges will not be reviewed on appeal.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 551. § 1168. Error in permitting the state's attorney to ask witnesses on cross-examination if it was not a fact that accused was reputed to be a gambler was harmless; the witnesses answering in the negative.-James v. State (Ark.) 733. § 1151. Denial of a continuance on the ground of the physical condition of accused will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the court |