ant after killing held admissible.-Bennett v. 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to susState, 790. tain conviction of murder.-Reeves v. State, 171(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Physical conditions 781. of scene of homicide detailed by sheriff proper-253(1) (Mo.) Conviction of first degree ly received.-Bennett v. State, 790. murder held supported by evidence.-State v. Johnson, 623. 255 (2) (Ark.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for voluntary manslaughter.-Wood v. State, 897. VIII. TRIAL. 171(3) (Ark.) Admission of testimony that defendant was violating liquor laws not error where merely cumulative of other testimony admitted without objection.-Owens v. State, (A) Conduct in General. 25. 171(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where double murder was one transaction evidence as to each successive step therein held admissible.-Gunn 262 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exhibition of deceased's overcoat with hole in side held not available v. State, 172. 174(4) (Ky.) Reference by witness to at- error, in absence of showing that it did not tempt to kill him because of his testimony held illustrate controverted issue.-Hughes v. State, 774. incompetent. Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139. 174(8) (Mo.) Statements after crime admissible, if connected by subject-matter.-State 269 (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether deceased dev. Johnson, 623. signed to kill not determinable, as matter of law, from character of weapon used by deceased.-Gunn v. State, 172. 174(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Letter by accused to witness held admissible.-Blackmon v. State, 803. 174 (9) (Ky.) Statements by witness to of ficer that defendant killed deceased held incompetent and prejudicial.-Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139. 193 (Tex.Cr.App.) Proof that deceased was unarmed held competent.-Blackmon v. State, 803. (B) Questions for Jury. 271 (Mo.) Passion held for jury.-State v. Connor, 713. 281 (Ark.) Question whether witnesses were accomplices properly submitted to jury.Owens v. State, 25. 282 (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant submission of murder to jury.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130. (C) Instructions. 194 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of wife's statement concerning husband held admissible to show his state of mind in prosecution for kill-294(1) (Mo.) Instruction defining partial ing another.-Johnson v. State, 554. insanity held not misleading.-State v. Liolios, 621. (C) Dying Declarations. 215(4) (Mo.) Admission of alleged dying declarations held error.-State v. Jamerson, 682. 218 (Tex.Cr.App.) Issue as to whether proper predicate made for dying declaration should be submitted to jury.-Yarbrough v. State, 1069. Issue as to proper predicate for dying declaration properly submitted when evidence conflicting.-Id. Issue of proper predicate for dying declaration need not be submitted when testimony is conclusive.-Id. Immaterial how issue as to sufficiency of predicate for dying declaration arises.-Id. Evidence held to make issue for jury as to mental status when dying declaration made. -Id. (E) Weight and Sufficiency. 229 (Mo.) Evidence of identification of body of deceased held sufficient.-State v. Goodson, 389. 231 (Ky.) Malice may be presumed from circumstances.-Jones v Commonwealth, 130. 294(2) (Ky.) Requested instruction on effect of intoxication preventing intention held erroneous.-Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012. Evidence of drunkenness preventing intent authorizes instruction on manslaughter in absence of proof of express malice.-Id. 295 (2) (Mo.) Instruction that jealousy was not sufficient provocation to justify_killing held not unsupported by testimony.-State v. Liolios, 621. 295 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction held not to have limited jury's consideration in determining cause of killing.-Gunn v. State, 172. 300 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge held not open to objection that it limited right of selfdefense to existence of actual danger.-Gunn v. State, 172. Accused's right to act upon theory of threatened attack held guarded by charge as given. -Id. 300 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.)Instructions on selfdefense not erroneous.-Hays v. State, 521. 300(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge held not objectionable as requiring deceased to have done some act or spoken words threatening accused. -Blackmon v. State, 803. 300 (4) (Ark.) Instruction held properly denied, as being argumentative.-Wood v. State, 897. 234(1) (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction notwithstanding conflict as to which of two persons did the shooting.-300(5) (Mo.) Instructions relating to law Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139. of self-defense held ambiguous and improperly 235 (Mo.) Conviction for death by abortion given.-State v. Creed, 678. cannot stand in absence of testimony that de-300 (7) (Ky.) Self-defense instruction receased was in good health before operation quiring belief of necessity to shoot and wound, and that an abortion was not necessary.-State or kill, held not erroneous.-Jones v. Comv. Goodson, 389. monwealth, 130. 237 (Tex.Cr.App.) Finding against insanity held warranted.-Galloway v. State, 516. 238 (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant viction of murder and infliction of death alty.-Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012. 249 (Ark.) Finding that witnesses not accomplices supported by evidence.-Owens v. State, 25. 300 (7) (Mo.) Instructions on self-defense may be given where facts justify.-State v. Burcon-rell, 709. pen-300 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Submission of accused's guilt in killing wife in attempt to shoot stepson predicated on offense had he killed stepson not error.-Gunn v. State, 172. Only that law of self-defense giving parties their rights should be given.-Id. were 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to support verdict of guilty.-Brent v. State, 500. 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to warrant conviction for murder. Hays v. State, 521. 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conviction of murder held sustained.-Wade v. State, 770. 300(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Law of provoking difficulty properly submitted.-Bennett v. State, 790. 300 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge on relative strength of parties uncalled for, defense being based on theory that deceased was armed.Blackmon v. State, 803. 1149 For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 300(8) (Mo.) Denying instruction on right of imperfect self-defense and subject of nicely gauging force to be used in self-defense held error.-State v. Creed, 678. 300 (9) (Tex.Cr.App.) Act of deceased in drawing pistol held not ground for basing legal presumption of intent to kill accused, and refusal to instruct not error.-Gunn v. State, 172. 300(12) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction on selfdefense, singling out portion of facts, properly refused.-Hays v. State, 521. held 300(14) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction not to limit jury's consideration to threats communicated to accused by third parties.Gunn v. State, 172. | 348 (Tex.Cr.App.) Unless giving charge, regarding presumption of intent to kill would produce different verdict, refusal to give harmless.-Gunn v. State, 172. HOSPITALS. 8 (Ky.) Petition held not to show_city was acting under invalid portion of act.-Hunter v. City of Louisville, 119. HUSBAND AND WIFE. BILITIES. See Curtesy; Divorce; Dower; Marriage. 300 (14) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction on self- 4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Husband 301 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instructions on defense of another not erroneous.-Hays v. State, 521. Instruction as to accused's right to kill in defense of brother not objectionable, as erroneously placing burden of proof.-Id. Instruction as to defendant's knowledge that his brother provoked difficulty with deceased held not erroneous.-Id. 305 (Ky.) Instruction on aiding and abetting need not require finding crime was induced thereby.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130. 305 (Ky.) Witness jointly indicted with accused held not accomplice under evidence. -Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139. 308 (3) (Mo.) Denial of charge on second degree murder held error under the evidence. -State v. Jamerson, 682. 309 (2) (Mo.) Accused's testimony as to deceased's attacks and threats on her immediately before shooting held sufficient to require instruction on manslaughter.-State v. Burrell, 709. 309 (6) (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant instruction on manslaughter by reckless shooting.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130. 309 (6) (Mo.) Instructions on manslaughter may be given where facts justify.-State v. Burrell, 709. 309(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction on manslaughter properly refused, where defendant denied facts on which it might have been given. -Hays v. State, 521. 310(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusing to submit law of simple assault held not error.-Stegall v. State, 513. IX. NEW TRIAL. 108. II. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. 34 (Mo.) Evidence held not to show an antenuptial contract.-Hafner v. Miller, 722. Proof of antenuptial contract must be conclusive.-Id. VI. ACTIONS. ~210(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Directing verdict for plaintiff husband held not error, though money sought to be recovered was paid by wife out of her separate property.-Estes v. Rutledge, 224. 239 (Tex.Civ.App.) Wife not discharged in suit on note because no personal judgment against her.-Daggett v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 344. VII. COMMUNITY PROPERTY. 264 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to sustain jury's finding deposit in wife's name was community property.-Armingen Martin, 1109. V. VIII. SEPARATION AND SEPARATE MAIN TENANCE. 278(1) (Ark.) Separation agreement settling property rights binding on parties, until avoided by their own conduct.-Sherman v. Sherman, 27. 279 (3) (Ark.) Separation agreement annulled by parties continuing to live together.Sherman v. Sherman, 27. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. 319 (Tex.Cr.App.) Newly discovered evi- See Bastards. dence sufficient where witness had previously told defendant he knew nothing about homicide. -Yarbrough v. State, 1069. X. APPEAL AND ERROR. 336 (Tex.Cr.App.) Showing witness deceased's overcoat and asking him as to bullet hole therein held not reversible error.-Hughes v. State, 774. 338(1) (Ky.) Statements by witness to officer that defendant killed deceased held incompetent and prejudicial.-Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139. IMPROVEMENTS. See Municipal Corporations, 407-570. See Guaranty. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. V. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY OF 338(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Error, if any, in ad-59 (Ky.) Erroneously naming offense does not invalidate.-Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894. mitting evidence of statement by defendant's 71 (Ky.) Technical common-law rules no wife, held harmless.-Johnson v. State, 554. longer prevail.-Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894. 110(31) (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment need not follow exact statutory description of liquor. -Nowells v. State, 550. on 340 (2) (Ky.) Instruction on killing in heat of passion unsupported by evidence held not prejudicial.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130. 340 (2) (Mo.) Erroneous instruction lesser degree not reversible.-State v. Cole, 698. 340 (3) (Ky.) Instruction on accidental killing not authorized by evidence is favorable to accused.-Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012. of deceased in 341 (Tex.Cr.App.) Act drawing pistol held not ground for basing legal presumption of intent to kill accused, and refusal to instruct if error was not ground for reversal.-Gunn v. State, 172. 1150 INJUNCTIONS. 125(31) (Tex.Cr.App.) Count charging] IV. PRELIMINARY AND INTERLOCUTORY 128 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment for false 150 (Tex.Civ.App.) Temporary restraining 129(2) (Árk.) Indictment held not defec- 130 (Mo.) Each act held separate and dis- of posses- Restraining order against establishment of VII. VIOLATION AND PUNISHMENT. 132(4) (Ark.) Separate counts may charge 132(5) (Ark.) Indictment held not defec- 132(7) (Mo.) Only one conviction under LIEF. INSPECTION. 2 (Tex.Civ.App.) Enactment requiring ap- See Criminal Law, 757-847; Trial, ~~191– III. INSURANCE AGENTS AND BROKERS. V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL. (B) Construction and Operation. VIII. CANCELLATION, SURRENDER, 238(1) (Mo.App.) Insurer held entitled to X. FORFEITURE OF POLICY FOR BREACH OF PROMISSORY WARRANTY, COVE- (B) Matters Relating to Property or In- terest Insured. 336(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statutes relative to (E) Nonpayment of Premiams or Assess- II. SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION AND RE- 75 (Tex.Civ.App.) State officers cannot be (H) Criminal Acts, Conspiracies, and 105(2)(Tex.Civ.App.) Prosecution under III. ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS. 118(4) (Tex.Com.App.) Petition to enjoin ue or paid-up insurance not unconditional, if Provision for paid-up policy which will pre- conditional, so as to defeat statutory extended XI. ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, OR AGREE- 378(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Knowledge gained 1151 For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER bind insurer.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart-1222 (Tex.Cr.App.) Unnecessary to negative exceptions in indictment.-Thomas V. ford, Conn., v. Buie, 295. State, 507. 378(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Condition as to sole ownership held waived by agent's knowledge of facts.-Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Davis. 862. 378(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Insurance broker held agent of insured.-Automobile Ins. Co., of Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295. 392(9) (Mo.App.) Acceptance and retention of premiums while awaiting health certificate preliminary to reinstatement held not waiver of forfeiture.-Willis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 995. Delay in acting upon application for reinstatement held not to waive forfeiture.-Id. XII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS. XVII. PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE, CONTRI- 598 (Tex.Civ.App.) Interest computed from sixtieth day after loss.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295. need not 222 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment negative exceptions.-Whitten v. State, 526. 222 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exceptions to prohibition law need not be negatived in indictment. -Eads v. State, 531. 224 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant must prove case within exceptions to statute.-Whitten v. State, 526. 227 (Tex.Cr.App.) Reputation of accused for committing the offense for which he is on trial held not admissible.-Gothard v. State, 508; Burns v. State, 508. 227 (Tex.Cr.App.) Proof of discharge from army held not admissible to prove good character at time of trial.-Whitten v. State, 526. 231 (Tex.Cr.App.) Permitting witness to testify that what was in fruit jar sold by accused looked like whisky held not error.Whitten v. State, 526. 232 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conduct of party after receiving whisky held admissible.-Mince v. State, 564. 233 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of finding gallon bottle of whisky held admissible in prosecution for unlawful sale.-Moore v. State, 168. 233 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Result of search on day succeeding alleged sale admissible.-Lamm v. State, 535. 602 (Tex.Com.App.) Necessity of demand 233 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence that fruit to collect damages and attorney's fees for non- jars containing whisky were found at accused's payment stated.-National Life Ins. Co. v. Mou-home held admissible.-Mince v. State, 564. ton, 1040. Demanding more than due under policy held not to defeat right of beneficiary to damages and attorney's fees for refusal to pay.-Id. XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES. 665(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding that insurance agent knew that another than insured owned interest in insured goods and was a partner in business held justified.-Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Davis, 862. 233 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Possession of apparatus for manufacturing is admissible to show possession of liquor for sale.-Kelly v. State, 1065. 236 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence supported conviction for possession of liquors for sale.-Forrester v. State, 785. 236(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain_conviction for possession for sale.-Kelly v. State, 1065. 236(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for selling intoxicating liquor. Harris v. State, 549. 666 (Tex.Civ.App.) Full recovery where part of property not destroyed, is error.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295.236(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to XX. MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE. (F) Actions for Benefits. support conviction of sale of liquor.-Mince v. State, 564. 236(13) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to support conviction that liquor sold was whisky. -Mince v. State, 564. 814 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statutory mode of service upon fraternal society held exclusive.-236 (19) (Ark.) Conviction for keeping unMosaic Templars of America v. Briscoe, 846. registered still sustained by evidence.-Bullard 817(2) (Ark.) Presumption of continued v. State, 584. good standing stated.-Knights and Ladies of Security v. Lewellen, 585. 819(2) (Ark.) Testimony held to support finding of payment of dues.-Knights and Ladies of Security v. Lewellen, 585. See Usury. INTEREST. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. VI. OFFENSES. 236(19) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for unlawful manufacture.-Eads v. State, 531; Benson v. State, 533. 238 (2) (Ky.) Evidence held to take issue of unlawful possession to jury.-English v. Commonwealth, 121. IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FOR- 246 (Ky.) Property not subject to forfeiture unless offense has been committed therein. 138 (Ark.) Transportation of liquor from-Commonwealth v. Brown, 104. unknown point to home is illegal; "from one place to another in this state."-Allen v. State, 899. VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 209 (Ky.) Accusation of operating illicit still sufficiently charges illicit manufacture.Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894. 209 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment for unlawful manufacture need not allege that liquor manufactured for purposes of sale.-Eads v. State, 531. 210 (Tex.Cr.App.) Unnecessary to allege that transportation was for purpose of sale.Thomas v. State, 507. 216 (Tex.Cr.App.) No averment of percentage of alcohol required.-Sanchez v. State, 548. 248 (Ky.) Affidavit based on information from named person held sufficient.-Goode v. Commonwealth, 105. 249 (Tenn.) General description held sufficient in warrant authorizing search for intoxicating liquors.-Hampton v. State, 1007. Search warrant held insufficiently to describe articles sought to be found.-Id. Information presented in affidavit for search warrant not part of warrant.-Id. 250 (Ky.) Petition to forfeit premises for liquor nuisance held insufficient.-Commonwealth v. Brown, 104. XII. RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND 327 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Notes given for stock in Mexican corporation engaged in liq uor business held illegal.-Ayub v. Automobile | vent bank held erroneous as based on inconsistMortg. Co., 287. JEOPARDY. See Criminal Law, 200. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES AND BUSINESS TRUSTS. (Ark.) Joint-stock companies and other associations operate under general law, not statutes.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602. Whether trust is created by indenture depends on language.-Id. 8 (Tex.Civ.App) Contracts of guaranty of stock construed strictly in favor of guarantor. -Britton v. Baxley, 880. ent pleadings.-Hall v. First Nat. Bank, 828. IX. OPENING OR VACATING. 341 (Ark.) Have inherent power to annul judgments during term rendered.-Dawson v. Mays. 33. 366 (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling motion for new trial because of illness of one of defendants' attorneys held not abuse of discretion.Mays & Mays v. Flattery, 860. X. EQUITABLE RELIEF. (A) Nature of Remedy and Grounds. 15(1) (Ark.) Shareholders not individually liable to creditors.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602. 17 (Ark.) Trustees personally responsible to creditors.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602. "Joint-stock company" and "business trust" distinguished as respects managers' status.-Id. 19 (Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on contract guaranteeing value of stock limited to actual 423 (Ark.) Errors affecting judgment not damages sustained.-Britton v. Baxley, 880. JOINT TENANCY. See Tenancy in Common. JUDGES. See Justices of the Peace. JUDGMENT. See Execution. IV. BY DEFAULT. 416 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment of partition held res adjudicata in suit by heirs attacking the partition and to recover possession of the partitioned land.-Ward v. Hinkle, 236. reviewable in equity suit to set it aside for fraud.-Matkin v. Cramer Cotton Co., 596. 432 (Ark.) To enjoin enforcement of judgment, diligence in defending, and lack of negligence and inattention, must be shown.-Matkin v. Cramer Cotton Co., 596. 452 (Tex.Com.App.) Heirs can have reviewed judgment rendered against ancestor after his death.--Jackson v. Wallace, 745. @mm 455 (B) Jurisdiction and Proceedings. only in forum in which rendered.-Borders v. (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment canceled Highsmith, 270. 460 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition for bill of review of foreclosure judgment held insufficiently specific.-Bergeron v. Security Nat. Bank, 856. (B) Opening or Setting Aside Default. 139 (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion for new trial461(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Court presumed to after default judgment addressed to court's have acquired jurisdiction over defendants besound discretion.-Allen v. Frank, 347. fore rendering judgment.-Jackson v. Wallace, 745. 144 (Tex.Civ.App.) Default judgment set aside, where court did not file statement of the evidence.-Daniel Miller Co. v. Puett, 333. 145(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Movant must show meritorious defense to have default judgment set aside.-Allen v. Frank, 347. defendant by publication presumed in view of 461(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Legal service on lapse of time and recital of judgment, notwithstanding allegation in petition that he was resi dent of Texas.-Ward v. Hinkle, 236. 145(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Husband's expendi-461 (5) (Ark.) Evidence held not to show ture of wife's separate funds for her support bond-Childs v. Linton, 21. agreement of parties not to take judgment on not a defense which will support motion for new trial after default judgment for amount thereof.-Allen v. Frank, 347. XI. COLLATERAL ATTACK. 151 (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion held insufficient as being mere statements of pleader's conclu-486 (2) (Ky.) Rendition after death of parsions as to diligence.-Allen v. Frank, 347. ty makes it voidable only.-Mosely v. Morgan, Motion for new trial after default judgment held not to show reasonable diligence.-Id. 163 (Tex.Civ.App.) Merits of original case not considered on motion for new trial after default judgment.-Allen v. Frank, 347. (C) Conformity to Process, Pleadings, Proofs, and Verdict or Findings. 248 (Tex.Civ.App.) Allowing claim against sary to render matter "res adjudicata" stated.state guaranty fund and general assets of insol-Allen v. Frank, 347. |