« AnteriorContinuar »
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER will consider things agreed or directed to be Court may dismiss petition of stockholders done as having been done.-Id.
against officers for accounting for failure to alComo 15(2) (Mo.) Executor's power to sell land lege and prove any substantial interest in suband distribute proceeds authorizes application ject-matter of suit.-Id. of doctrine.-Turner v. Hine, 933.
320(13) (Mo.) Receiver held unnecessary 22(2) (Mo.) Legatees entitled to proceeds in suit by minority stockholders against ofof sale may elect before sale to take land it- ficers and directors of nongoing corporation, self; "reconversion."-Turner v. Hine, 933. for accounting.-Collins v. Martin,. 941. Am 22(3) (Mo.) Legatees', conveyance of in Orders appointing receiver with direction to terests before sale of land held sufficient to au- | institute suit against officers for misappropriathorize application of doctrine.---Turner v. tion of funds, etc., held not exercise of sound Hine, 933.
judicial discretion.-Id. All legatees must elect to reconvert unless conveyance by some will not impair interests VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND
LIABILITIES. of others.-Id.
Conveyances of interests of all but one of (A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in legatees before sale held ineffective as recon
372 (Ky.) General words following specific Legatees' conveyances of interests in land enumeration of powers are restricted to powbefore sale and distribution of proceeds among ers of same class.-Rogers v. Ramey, 254. them held valid, though ineffective as recon- ! 376 (Ky.) Stockholder cannot pay debt to version by reason of failure of one to so elect. corporation by surrendering stock to it.-Mer-Id.
chants' Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Forsythe, CORPORATIONS.
869. See Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Joint-Stock cm380 (Ky.) Charter held to authorize broCompanies and Business' Trusts; Municipal kerage corporation to act as insurance agent.Corporations: Railroads; Street' Railroads: Rogers. v. Ramey, 254. Telegraphs and Telephones.
Requirement agent shall be of good charac
ter does not prevent corporation from acting IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS. as agent.-Id. (B) Subscription to Stock.
(B) Representation of Corporation by 01Om80(4) (Ky.) Agent's oral representations
ficers and Agents. held merged in written contract for sale of 400 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of limitation stock.-Merchants' Wholesale Grocery Co. v. on general manager's authority to buy grain Forsythe, 869.
held properly rejected as not binding seller.-Cum 80(12) (Ky.) Petition for fraud in sale of Farmers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72. stock in a pretended corporation held insuffi- *417 (Tex.civ.App.) General manager held cient to state a cause of action.--Corley v. Car- not authorized to release debt in absence of sou, 181.
consideration for his agreement.-Baker v. Om80(12) (Ky.) Plea of fraud in sale of cor: Coleman Abstract Co., 412. porate stock held insufficient.--Merchants' 422(1) (Tex. Civ. App.) Declaration of Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Forsythe, 869. agent must be made under expressed authority,
or authority implied from the business to bind V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.
corporation.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. (D) Liability for Corporate Debts and Hodges, 72,
X. CONSOLIDATION. Om232(3) (Mo.App.) Stockholders are liable for excessive value of property given for stock Com590 (3) (Tex.Civ. App.), Consolidated notwithstanding good faith.-Hastings v. Scott, press company held liable for debts of constit973.
uent companies.-Grice V. American Ry. En Requirement property exchanged for stock be press Co., 82. itemized does not change rule requiring value. Cow 591 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to show -Id.
agreement by consolidated company to assume Latitude should be allowed in estimating debts of constituents.-Grice v. American Ry. value of property exchanged for corporate Express Co., 82. stock.--Id. 253 (Tex.Civ.App.) Insolvency and neres
XI. DISSOLUTION AND FORFEITURE
FRANCHISE. sity of amounts due for stock established by judgment in receivership case.-Mitchell Cw619 (Mo.) Officers and directors, without Bowles, 459.
joining corporation whose existence has ceased, 262(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Fraud in procuring may be required to account as trustees for asstock subscription not available against credi- sets to persons having substantial interest tors of insolvent corporation.-Mitchell
therein.-Collins v. Martin, 941, Bowles, 459.
XII, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. Organization under laws of another state than agreed not available against creditors after in- Om668(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Service of alias cisolvency, where note was given under subscrip- tation upon agent not shown to be such held tion contract.-Id.
to confer no jurisdiction.-Chaffin v, W’m. J. 265(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Receiver cannot have Lemp Brewing Co., 715. judgment on stock subscription note in posses- C 668(16) (Tex.civ.App.) Uncontroverted sion of persons outside court's jurisdiction and ailidavit that agent served was in fact not denot parties to suit.-Mitchell v. Bowles, 459. fendant corporation's agent held to justify a Cm269(3) (Mo.App.) Evidence held to sustain finding of no service.--Chatiin v. Wm. J. Lemp finding property exchanged for stock was over- Brewing Co., 715. valued.--Hastings v. Scott, 973.
Cw669 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appointment of attor
ney to represent corporation after service by VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS.
publication held proper.-Chaffin y. Wm. J. (C) Rights, Duties, and liabilities Lemp Brewing Co., 715.
Corporation and Its Members: 320(1112) (Mo.) Issue of stockholder's
COSTS. claim of ownership of stock disclosed on trial 1. NATURE, GROUNDS. AND EXTENT OF in suit for accounting should be framed in
RIGHT IN GENERAL. pleadings and tried with other issues, and re-m32(1) (Mo.) Court held without discretion lief determined thereon.-Collins v. Martin, to tax costs against prevailing party -Newton 941.
v. Olson-Schmidt Const. Co., 929,
cm 45 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment for deceased 1231 (23), (Mo.) Constitutional question dedefendant for costs held improper.-Chaffin v. cided favorably to appellant, and not thereafter Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co., 715.
kept alive, does not give Supreme Court juris
diction.-California Special Road Dist. v. COUNTERCLAIM.
Bueker, 927. See Set-Off and Counterclaim.
231(23) (Mo.) No constitutional question
raised by averment that count charges no ofCOUNTIES.
fense.-State v. Hale, 958.
Appellate jurisdiction not given by constituII. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS. tional question first injected by argument or (D) Officers and Agents.
brief on appeal.-Id. Om69(1) (Ky.) Officer cannot recover
To give appellate jurisdiction constitutional pensation for services, unless fixed by law.- question to be raised timely in course of orderly Graves County v. Roach, 175.
For appellate jurisdiction constitutional ques. III. PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND LIA
tion to be kept alive.-Id. BILITIES.
For appellate jurisdiction particular provi. (C) County Expenses and charges and sion of Constitution violated to be pointed out. Statutory Liabilities.
-Id. Paw 133 (ky.) Cannot become indebted by im- pointed out wherein statute conflicted with
For appellate jurisdiction it must have been plication.-Graves County v. Roach, 175. County liable for cost of notifying taxpayers 231(23) (Mo.) Appellate jurisdiction not
Constitution.--Id. of increase in assessments.--Id.
given by constitutional question raised by anVI. ACTIONS.
swer instead of demurrer.-Dorrah v. Pemiscot
County Bank, 960. w218 (Ky.) Note for subscription to high Constitutional question giving appellate juway fund payable to special treasurer held valid risdiction not raised by mere statement of legal and enforceable by suit in joint names of coun- conclusion.-Id. ty and such treasurer.-Webb v. Dunn, 840. mm 231 (23) (Mo.) Constitutional question not
raised relative to appellate jurisdiction by mere COURTS.
assertion of statute violating certain sections. See Criminal Law, Cm103; Judges; Prohibition; -State v. Nece, 903. Removal of Causes.
VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND
JURISDICTION, AND COMITY.
(A) Courts of Same State, and Transfer of (B) Terms, Vacations, Place and Time of
Causes. Holding Court, Courthouses, and
Om472(3) (Ky.) County court and circuit Accommodations.
court have concurrent jurisdiction.-Duke v. Omw 64(2) (Ky.) Trial at special term held Allen, 894. proper.-Sowders v. Commonwealth, 187.
ww487 (4) (Mo.) Supreme Court will not re• Omw 64(3) (Ky.) Statute authorizing specialtain jurisdiction not shown by record.—Severterm of court construed.-Sowders y, Common
son v. Dickinson, .595. wealth, 187.
COVENANTS. (C) Rules of Court and Conduct of Busi
II, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. P85(1) (Tex.Com.App.). Court of Civil Ap
(B) Covenants of Title. peals has right to enforce its rules within limi: 42(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Deed held not to tation as justice requires.-Rowntree v. Peck contain a special warranty against mortgage. Furniture Co., 26.
-Holland v. W. C. Belcher Land Mortg. Co.,
803. (D) Rules
Cm 47 (Tex.Civ.App.) General
covenant of Cw97 (5) (Ark.) Interstate shipments gov- v., Sanders, 120.
warranty applies oniy to whole title.-Liberto erned by acts of Congress and decisions of Supreme court.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. (C) Covenants as to Use of Real Property. Maddy, 911.
to ww99 (2) (Ky.) Ruling on demurrer does not wo 49 (Mo.App.) Restriction as preclude dismissal of suit.-Hardin v. Johnson, property strictly construed.-Williams v. Carr, 544.
Cm 51 (2) (Mo.App.) Ambiguity as to creation IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFERIOR of building restrictions will be resolved against JURISDICTION.
them.-Williams v. Carr, 625. www169(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Value of mortgaged property part of amount involved in action on (D) Covenants Running with the Land. debt as well as debt itself.—Davis v. First Nat. Cm79(1) (Tex.civ.App.) Vendee may hold reBank, 119.
mote vendor for breach of warranty of title.w 170 (Tex.Civ.App.) Value of mortgaged Liberto v. Sanders, 120. property part of amount involved in action on debt must be alleged, where court has limited III. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. jurisdiction.—Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 119.
ww89 (Ky.) Knowledge acquired otherwise by VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURIS warrantor is not equivalent of notice to defend. DICTION.
-Burchett v. Blackburne, 853. (B) Courts of Particular States. am 102(1) (Ky.) Action not maintainable un231(6) (Mo.) Relative to appellate juris- Burchett v. Blackburne, 853.
der warranty of title until after eviction. diction, attack on count under which defendant 103 (2)" (Mo. App.) Garage held a "barn" was acquitted not considered.--State v. Hale, within building restrictions.--Williams v. Carr, 958.
625. 231(6) (Mo.) Mere colorable constitutional question insufficient for appellate jurisdiction.
IV. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. -Dorrah v. Pemiscot County Bank, 960.
114(5) (Ky.) Petition for breach of war231 (23) (Mo.) Constitutional question ranted title must allege eviction by paramount waived by failure to raise before motion for title or notice to warrantor to defend.--Bur
tur cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Bmw 121(2) (Ky.) Warrantee must prove evic- the state held properly admitted in connection tion by paramount title if he does not notify with other facts.-State v. Bennett, 924. warrantor to defend.—Burchett v. Blackburne, Om338(6) (Tex.Cr. App.) Character evidence 853.
as to persons not in proximity to offense held Ca 121 (3) (Ky.) Warrantor is bound by judg- irrelevant.--Lovel v. State, 349. ment against warrantee if notified to defend. 351(1) (Ky.) Evidence as to nervousness -Burchett v. Blackburne, 853.
of accused when bloodhound was brought heid Oww 130(4), (Tex.Civ.App.) Action on breach of incompetent.-Springs v. Commonwealth, 535. warranty for failure of title predicated on equi-C351 (2) (Ky.) Evidence of conduct of actable estoppel.--Liberto v. Sanders, 120. cused when arrested held incompetent.--Springs
v. Commonwealth, 535. CRIMINAL LAW.
Can-354 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of enormity See Arson; Assault and Battery, 92: Bail, of crime and apparently inadequate motive are ww49-70; Burglary; Conspiracy, 29-48; admissible.--Sagu v. State, 390. Embezzlement; False Pretenses; Forgery;
m364(5) (Ky.) Testimony as to conduct and Grand Jury; Homicide; Indictment and In
statements defendant immediately after formation; Larceny:
Malicions Mischief; shooting held competent.-Clem v. CommonRape, 59; Robbery; Seduction, Enw 46; 365 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Other criminal acts Threats.
of defendant at the time part of res gestæ.III. PARTIES TO OFFENSES.
Sagu v. State, 396. Crow 59(3). (Tex.Civ.App.) Absent person performing his part in conspiracy is principal.- (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Ac
cused, Cochrain v. State, 43.
Cum369(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Question as to how IV. JURISDICTION.
many appearance bonds witness was on for de103 (Tex.Cr.App.) Jurisdiction held con- fendant held not objectionable.-Simmons v. ferred by transfer, though order not noted in State, 392. minutes of court.-Koehan v. State, 365.
ww369 (2) (Ark.) Testimony as to defendant's
arrest for similar offense on previous occasion, V. VENUE.
and articles found in his room, held incompe
tent.-Wood v. State, 568. (A) Place of Bringing Prosecution.
Om369(6) (Ky.) Error to admit evidence 108(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Venue in abortion showing operation of moonshine still at differcase confined to county where offense is com ent times and places.-Jackson v. Commonmitted.-Humphries v. State, 374.
wealth, 242. ww112(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) No jurisdiction of 371 (12) (Ky.) Evidence of other offenses prosecution for abortion resulting from oper- is admissible to show motive.--Burns v. Comation performed in another county.-Humphries monwealth, 848. v. State, 374.
Evidence previous shooting scrape occurred
between accused and deceased is competent. (B) Change of Venue.
-Id. ww137 (Tex.Cr. App.) Overruling uncontro-On374 (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge. to which deverted application for change of venue held er- fendant is entitled relative to considering colror.-Ross v. State, 685.
lateral crimes in evidence, stated.-Lankford v. 142 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bail may be granted State, 389. where case pending after change of venue or upon habeas corpus returnable in county where (D) Materiality and Competency in Gencrime committed.--Ex parte Meador, 348. Application for habeas corpus after change of
393(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of search venue should be presented first where case is and seizure of still held not scheme to make pending.-Id.
defendant testify against himself.--Harris v. IX.
C393(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of search
and seizure of still and introduction of apparaCm 290 (Ky.) Motion for peremptory instruc
tus in evidence held not scheme to make de
fendant tion does not raise question of former jeopardy.
testify against himself.-Harris
State, 54. -Sorrels v. Commonwealth, 205. Em 290 (Ky.) Question of former jeopards C-394 (Tex.Cr.App.), Arresting officer's testiheld not raised by motion to dismiss.-Carody mony as to seizure odmissible despite absence v. Commonwealth, 1013.
or insufficiency of search warrant.-Gurski v. 291 (Ky.) Plea of former jeopardy not re
State. 353. newed under second indictment held not pre-w395, (Tex.Cr.App.). Whisky found on persented for ruling.-Carody v. Commonwealth, son and premises admissible despite absence or 1013.
search warrant.--Gurski State, 353.
w396 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) State had right to (A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof.
develop whole conversation.-Staton v. State,
356. @mw 304(2) (Ark.) Common knowledge banks deal in money only when giving depositors cred-(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstrait.-Gurley y. State, 902. Paw304(13) (Ký.) Judicial notice of time of regular" terms of court taken.-Sowders v.m.400(3) (Ky.) Testimony by witness he was Commonwealth. 187.
deputy sheriff is competent.--Cornett v. Comw 318 (Tex.Cr.App.) In cases of circumstan- monwealth, 510. tial evidence, inferences from evidence in state's possession, but not introduced, are in (F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hearfavor of accused.---White v. State, 690. w331 (Tex.Cr.App.) Burden of proof of in- 406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of accussanity on defendant.-Sagu v. State, 390. ed held admissible in evidence.-Staton v. State,
356. (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Is- (-406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of testisues, and Res Gestæ.
mony of conversation between accused and an338(3) (Mo.) Defendant's statements that other concerning still held not error.-Mche brought the goods to a certain county within | Knight v. State, 377.
m406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement made by ww 473 (Tex.Cr.App.). Physician describing accused after arrest as to location of still held wound may express opinion as to its probable admissible.--Wade v. State, 381.
nature.--Windham y. State, 51. m406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement made by Physician's testimony that he thought asaccused after arrest as to location of still held saulted party's skull was fractured held admisadmissible.-Wade v. State, 382.
sible.--Id. Cm 406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statements of de- m476 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exclusion of physifendant before arrest admissible.-Lugo v. cian's testimony as to whether wound could State, 387.
have been made by bottle thrown certain disCm406(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony as to de- tance held reversible error.-Tolston v. State, fendant's statement of reason for taking mon- 150. ey obtained by threats held not objectionable 476 (Tex.Cr.App.) Physician describing as not referring to matter under investigation. wound may express opinion as to probable -Simmons v. State, 392.
cause, nature, and effect. --Windham v. State, Testimony that defendant told prosecuting 51. witness to say that defendant borrowed money Cw488 (Tex.Cr.App.) Doctor's testimony that obtained by threats held admissible.-Id. he had tested liquor, and found it to contain Om407 (1) (Ky.) Statements in defendant's 50 per cent. alcohol, held admissible.-Harris presence with his accompanying action or v. State, 54. speech held admissible.-Pharris v. Commonwealth, 230.
(J) Testiinony of Accomplices and Code
fendants. Pum 407 (2) (Mo.) Statements of third party made in presence of defendant while in cus-Fawww 507(1), (Ky.), Witness receiving whisky tody, and not denied, are inadmissible. -State transported by defendant held not an accomv. Dengel, 603.
plice.-Delong v. Commonwealth, 839. Cm 407 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused not bound fm 507 (1) (Ky.) Person who delivers supplies by statements of third party, unless made in to still is an accomplice."-Dennison v. Comhis presence and hearing. ---Smith v. State, 685. monwealth, 880. Exw417(10) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of an 507(0) (Tex.Cr.App.) Purchaser of liquor other indicted for same offense held inadmissi- before amendment of Dean Law, in testifying ble.-Staton v. State, 356.
thereto to show purpose of seller's subsequent 419, 420 (8) (Tex. Cr. App.) Testimony in possession, accomplice witness.-Lankford v.
State, 389. prosecution for swindling held inadmissible
Oma 507 (4) (Tex.Cr. App.) hearsay.-Boswell v. State, 360.
Officer, arranging Cam419, 420(10) (Ark.) Admission of police with porter of hotel to send prostitute to his officer's testimony, as to prosecuting witness room, held accomplice.-Sterling v. State, 684. statement that he recognized defendant as one cow 507 (4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Son of sheriff, buywho robbed him, held error.–Wood v. State, Smith v. State, 685.
ing liquor of accused held an accomplice.568.
419, 420(10) (Mo.) Evidence as to identi- 508 (7) (Mo.) Codefendant who has pleaded tication of defendant 'held hearsay.--State v. guilty is a competent witness.-State v. RoderDengel, 603.
man, 964. Cm419, 420 (10). (Tex. Cr. App.) Admission of ing whether testimony, exclusive of that of ac
C 511(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Method of determine physician's testimony that prosecutrix told him complice, sufficient to corroborate him stated. defendants procured abortion on her held re-1-Sterling v. State, 684. versible error.-Scott v. State, 355.
Evidence held insufficient to corroborate tes. Cw419, 420(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of timony of accomplice in prosecution for procurtelephone conversation held inadmissible hear- ing.-Id. say.-Wilson v. State, 687.
Om511 (4) (Ky.) Evidence held to corroborate
accomplice testimony.-Dennison v. Common(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspira wealth, 880. tors and Codefendants.
(K) Confessions. 427 (2) (Ky.) Statements of alleged con-522(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Confessions obtainspirators in defendant's absence inadmissible, ed by unlawful assault not voluntary.-White when conspiracy not established.-Pharris v.
v. State, 690. Commonwealth, 230.
Cw534(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of eri427(4) (Ký.) Acts and statements of al- dence corroborating confession not error.-leged conspirators admissible to establish con- Todd v. State, 695. spiracy.-Pharris v. Commonwealth, 230.
Evidence of surrounding conditions held releC 427 (5) (Ky.) Conspiracy cannot be estab- vant in corroboration of confession.-Id. lished by suspicion or by showing natural or reasonable relations and associations.-Pharris
(M) Weight and Suflleiency. v. Commonwealth, 230.
ww552(3) (Ky.) Circumstantial evidence inCm427(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to es- sufficient unless it excludes every reasonable tablish conspiracy to defraud insurance com- hypothesis of innocence.-Springs y. Commonpany.-Cochrain v. State, 43.
wealth. 535. C428 (Tex.Cr.App.) Both written and oral 552(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Circumstantial evistatements of co-conspirators are admissible. dence must exclude every other reasonable hr. -Cochrain v. State, 43.
pothesis arising from evidence on trial.-Lovel
v. State, 349. (1) Opinion Evidence.
560 (Mo.App.) Suspicions will not support
conviction.-State v. Ferrell, 979. C448(12) (Mo.) Evidence as to identifica- Cam570(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of enormition of defendant held a conclusion.-State v. ty of crime and apparently inadequate motive Dengel, 603.
are admissible, but not conclusive of insanity. C 456 (Tex.Cr.App.) Witness' testimony that --Sagu v. State, 390. party assaulted was "addled" when picked up 570(2) (Tex.Cr. App.) Burden of proof of held admissible.--Windham v. State, 51.
insanity on defendant, and sanity need not be 459 (Tex.Cr.App.) Nonexpert witness' tes proved beyond reasonable doubt.--Sagu v. State, timony that liquor drunk by him was intoxicat- 390. ing held admissible.-Gurski v. State, 353. Am459 (Tex.Cr.App.) Opinion evidence that XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINUANCE. liquor was intoxicating held competent and suf-589(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal of two days' ficient to sustain finding.--Szymanski v. State, delay where indictment not served till demand380.
ed held not error.-Wells v. State, 378.
For cases in Deo.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
error.-Boswell v. State, 360.
State, 281. Cam 598(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Continuance for ab- Om719(3) (Tex.Cr. App.) Statement of prosesent witness need not be granted, unless dili- cuting counsel during argument held reversible gence is shown.-Cochrain v. State. 43. error.-Boswell v. State, 360. Em598(6) (Tex.Cr. App.) Due diligence to se- m721(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument held not cure witness requires issuance of subpæna be- allusion to accused's failure to testify.-Staton fore lapse of more than three months after in- v. State, 356. dictment and arrest.-Gurski v. State, 353. ww72112(1) (Tex. Cr. App.) Permissible for 603(2) (Tex.Cr. App.) Application for con- counsel' to comment on failure to call witnesstinuance for absence of witnesses in seduction es.--Bowlin v. State, 396. prosecution held insufficient.--Rhodes v. State,
State's counsel could comment on failure of 679.
defendant to ask question of witness.--Id. 614(1) (Tex. Cr. App.) Denial of second Em72112(2) (Tex. Cr. App.) Statement of continuance for absent witnesses held not er- state's counsel as to reason for not calling witror.-McKnight v. State, 377.
ness held warranted.--Bowlin v. State, 396.
Cm723(1) (Ark.) Reference by state's counsel XII. TRIAL.
to demonstration by spectators held improper. (B) Course and conduct of Trial in Gena-Pendergrass v. State, 914,
Om723(1) (Mo.) Argument of assistant proseOm641(1) (Mo.) Defendant's attorney held cutor, held improper. --State v. Delcour, 606. pot denied right to consult with client confined w723 (1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument that acin jail.-State v. Roderman, 964.
cused's father was able to hire high-priced Om655(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of prose- lawyers for him held error. -Todd v. State, 695. cuting counsel during argument and court's re- m730(1). (Tex.Cr.App.) Reprimanding counmark held reversible error. .-Boswell v. State, sel discretionary.-Bowlin v. State, 396. 360.
w730 (5) (Ark.) State attorney's argument On 655(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Remarks of court as without prejudice, in view of instruction.-Spier to conduct of counsel held not erroneous.
v. State, 281. Wade v. State, 381.
m730(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Conduct of state's
attorney held harmless.-Bowlin y, State, 396. (C) Reception of Evidence.
730(14) (Ark.) Reference by state's coun. Om665(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Making rule apply to sel to demonstration by spectators held imall witnesses held not error.-Bowlin v. State, proper, but curable by court's action.-Pender396.
grass v. State, 914. Court held not to have abused discretion in putting accused's mother under rule.--Id. (F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen673(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Limitation of evi
eral. dence of condition of body of deceased held un-741(1) (Ky.) If any evidence indicates denecessary, but not material error.-Todd y. fendant's guilt, case must go to jury.-Sorrels State, 695.
v. Commonwealth, 205. 678(3) (Ky.) Introduction of evidence Cm741(1) (Ky.) Case submitted to jury when showing finding of still held election rendering there are facts from which guilt can be desubsequent evidence concerning different still duced. -Pharris v. Commonwealth, 230. inadmissible.-Jackson v. Commonwealth, 242.752 (Mo.) Rule as to granting request to Om684 (Ark.) Within court's discretion to instruct to acquit in nature of demurrer to permit direct testimony by state after defend- evidence. --State v. Whitman, 937. ant has rested.-Smith v. State, 555.
753(1) (Ky.) Directed verdict properly de(D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to
nied if the evidence sufficient for jury.-SorStrike Out, and Exceptions.
rels y. Commonwealth, 205.
757 (7) (Ark.) Instruction to disregard tesww693 (Mo.) Objection to testimony, not in timony of witness testifying falsely as to one terposed until question is answered, made
material fact held to invade jury's province.too late.--State v. Walker, 947.
Roberts v. State, 293. 696 (4) (Mo.) General objection in motion
Instruction on credibility not objectionable as to strike testimony given insufficient.--State v.
telling jury to disregard witness' testimony if Delcour, 606.
he testified falsely as to material fact.-Id. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.762(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Warning in charge
against finding verdict by chance or lot held Cu 711 (Tex.Cr.App.) Limiting time for argu- not improper. - Lovel v. State, 349. ment held not error.--Blonk v. State, 375.
763, 764(17) (Tex.Cr. App.) Instruction in m714 (Tex.Cr.App.) Prosecutor's statement arson case held erroneous as on weight of evithat grand jury had passed on prosecuting wit-dence.-White v. State, 690. ness' guilt held error.-Rosborough v. State, 372. 714 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where statute denies (G) Necessity. Requisites and Sufficiency
of Instructions. right to suspended sentence, permission to read application, and instruction thereon properly m778(4) (Tex. Cr. App.) Customary charge denied.-Blonk v. State, 375.
on presumption of innocence proper.-Sagu v. 715 (Tex.Cr.App.) State's counsel war- | State, 390. ranted in exhibiting letter and requesting ju-m780(1)(Tex.Cr.App.) Proper to charge rors to note difference in handwriting.--Bowlin that conviction cannot be had on testimony of v. State, 396.
accomplice alone.--Sterling v. State, 684. Cm717 (Tex.Cr.App.) Prosecutor's argument Cm781(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial of instruction that accused should have appealed to officers of regarding effect of exculpatory and mitigating law for protection if deceased threatened his facts embraced in state's evidence held error. life held not ground for reversal.--Olivares v. -Forrester v. State, 40. State, 366.
783(1) (Mo.App.) Instruction as to purOma 719(1) (Mo.) Prosecuting attorney must pose for which certain evidence was admitted confine his argument to the facts elicited.- hell properly refused as unintelligible.-State State v. Dengel, 603.
V. Graves, 976. 248 S.W.--72