784 (1) (Mo.) Defendant entitled to in- | XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN struction as to circumstantial evidence, where ARREST. such evidence relied on to show corpus delicti. ~913(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Plea to jurisdiction -State v. Bennett, 924. first made as grounds for new trial too late. 784(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Witness' nonrecog--Koehan v. State, 365. nition of party assaulted at moment of blow 9252 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal of new held not to require charge on circumstantial trial for misconduct of juror not an abuse of evidence.-Windham v. State. 51. discretion.-Todd v. State, 695.

787 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge that failure 930 (Ark.) Manifestation of popular sentiof accused to testify should not be considered ment prejudicial to accused requires new trial. against him or discussed by jury in retirement-Pendergrass v. State, 914. held not erroneous.-Lovel v. State, 349.

denies

930 (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal to grant new trial because of demonstration of audience not an abuse of discretion.-Todd v. State, 695. Demonstrations by spectators not a ground for a new trial unless jury is prejudiced thereby.--Id.

789(4) (Tex. Cr. App.) Customary charge on reasonable doubt proper.-Sagu v. State, 390. 790 (Ky.) Duty to instruct on all law applicable.--Howard v. Commonwealth, 1059. 796 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where statute right to suspended sentence, instruction there-936 (4) (Ky.) Statement by prosecuting on properly denied.-Blonk v. State, 375. witness held not ground for surprise in testi796 (Tex.Cr.App.) For sale before amend- mony.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878. ment of Dean Law was in effect, defendant en-936 (6) (Ky.) Claim of surprise cannot be titled to submission of suspended sentence.- first made on motion for new trial.-Dennison Wyatt v. State, 1076. v. Commonwealth, 878.

814(3) (Ky.) Law inapplicable to evidence should not be given to the jury.-Daniel v. Commonwealth, 511.

814(17) (Ark.) Instruction on sufficiency of testimony to support conviction, where state relies wholly on circumstantial evidence, properly refused.-Wood v. State, 568. 814(17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to warrant denial of instruction concerning circumstantial evidence.-Blonk v. State, 375.

818 (Ky.) Admonition limiting effect of evidence of other offenses held applicable to both witnesses testifying thereto.-Burns V. Commonwealth, 848.

938(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Trial for newly discovered evidence not granted unless_movant was unaware of purported testimony.-Lovel v. State, 349. 938(1) (Ky.) Cumulative and impeaching evidence does not require new trial.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878.

938 (4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Rule that undisclosed evidence of witness present at trial will not be regarded as newly discovered subject to exceptions.-Anderson v. State, 681.

shown to authorize new trial for newly dis939(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Sufficient diligence covered evidence.-Anderson v. State, 681.

822(1) (Ky.) Instructions must be read939 (2) (Ky.) Motion held not to show dilitogether.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878. gence with reference to new evidence.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878.

822(1) (Mo.) Omission from instruction not considered, where instructions as whole 940 (Ky.) New trials hesitatingly granted cover every phase.-State v. Williams, 922.

822(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Whole charge considered to determine prejudice.-Bowlin State, 396.

823(15) (Ky.) Instruction omitting quirement to find beyond reasonable doubt cured.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878.

for new evidence.-Daniel v. Commonwealth, 511. V.942(1) (Ark.) Newly discovered evidence impeaching witness is not ground for new trial. held-Pendergrass v. State, 914.

-(Ark.) Spier v. State, 281;

(Tex.Cr.App.) Bowlin v. State, 396. 829(5) (Ark.) Requested instruction there was no duty to retreat held covered by charge given.-Pendergrass v. State, 914.

829(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) In

view of

main

942(2) (Ky.) New evidence as to contradictory statements by witness for prosecution does not require new trial.-Delong v. Commonwealth, 839.

951 (1) (Mo.) Counsel must file motions for new trial in time provided by statute and have proper entry made on record.-State v. Whalen, 931.

951(5) (Mo.) Statute stating within what

time motion for new trial shall be made held mandatory.-State v. Whalen, 931.

957 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Jurors cannot impeach own verdict by affidavit stating evidence misunderstood.-Blonk v. State, 375.

970 (6) (Ark.) Refusal to compel state to charge, no need to give special charge on self-elect between counts held not ground for ardefense. Keith v. State, 384. rest of judgment.-Wood v. State, 568.

857(2) (Tex. Cr. App.) Statements made by jurors not misconduct requiring reversal of conviction.-Todd v. State, 695.

858(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Permitting jury to take confession with them in their retirement not error.-Todd v. State, 695.

(K) Verdict.

970(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Question of duplicity cannot be raised for first time in motion for arrest.-Melley v. State, 367.

974(2) (Mo.) Counsel must file motions in arrest in time provided by statute and have proper entry made on record.-State v. Whalen, 931.

XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL
COMMITMENT.

978 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denying right to sus-
pended sentence held not in excess of legisla-
tive authority.-Blonk v. State, 375.
show ap-
plicant for suspended sentence to be of bad
repute.-Shirley v. State, 692.

878(3) (Mo.) Verdict finding accused guilty 982 (Tex.Cr.App.) State may on first count but not guilty on second count held regular and sufficient.-State v. Whitman, 937.

878(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Verdict of "guilty as charged" following submission of one of two counts of indictment is sufficient.-Connelly v. State. 342.

885 (Tex. Cr. App.) Defendant pleading guilty cannot complain that jury did not recommend suspended sentence.-Pugh v. State. 43.

XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND
CERTIORARI.

(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and
Right of Review.

1004 (Mo.) Statutes authorizing appeals strictly followed.-State v. Campbell, 927.

1139

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
and Reservation
(B) Presentation

Lower Court of Grounds of Review.

in

(C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause,
and Effect Thereof.

1074 (Mo.) Affidavit for appeal under statmust be made by defendant.-State v. Campbell, 927.

1032(5) (Tex. Cr. App.) Conviction under count charging manufacture of intoxicating liq-ute uors without negativing exceptions reversed, though count not attacked in lower court.-Davidson v. State, 383.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record.

1032(6) (Ky.) Right to object to misjoinder is waived by failure to require election by demurrer or motion. Dennison v. Com-1087(2) (Mo.) Jurisdiction of Supreme Court not invoked on constitutional grounds, in monwealth, 880. absence of record entry of bill of exceptions. State v. Gooch, 929.

1036(1) (Ky.) Competency of evidence not objected to cannot be reviewed.-Springs Commonwealth, 535.

1036(1) (Ky.) Objection on appeal that evidence was incompetent not available in ab-1090(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Without statement sence of objection below.-Sorrels v. Com- of facts or bill of exceptions, errors in admismonwealth, 205. sion or rejection of evidence not reviewable.Koehan v. State, 365. V.1091 (11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions in question and answer form held not entitled to consideration.-Blonk v. State, 375. 1091(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions should not consist of questions and answers.Wade v. State, 382.

1036(1) (Mo.) Timely objection must be made to questions indicating answer.-State v. Delcour, 606.

1036 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) That objection to testimony and request for instructions would have added to injury no excuse for silence.Simmons v. State, 392.

1091(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions in improper form not considered.-Bowlin v. State, 398.

1037(2) (Ark.) Reference by state's coun-1091 (11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions sel to demonstration by spectators held should not consist of questions and answers.not reversible error, where no correction was Shirley v. State, 692. 1092 (6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction not requested.-Pendergrass v. State, 914. 1037(2) (Mo.) Request for correction nec- considered, where bill of exceptions filed late.— Harris v. State, 54. essary to review prosecuting attorney's argu-1092 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions, ment.-State v. Dengel, 603.

1037 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills complaining of failure to instruct jury not to consider certain argument not considered.-Simmons State, 392.

V.

1038(1) (Mo.) Objection to instruction not made until motion for new trial held made too late.-State v. Walker, 947.

not

1038(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction considered, where there was no written objection.-Harris v. State, 54.

1038(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection to charge to be reviewable must be in writing.-Bowlin v. State, 396.

filed after time allowed cannot be considered on appeal.-Keck v. State, 1074.

not 1092 (13) (Tex.Cr.App.) Exception approved will not be considered as having been presented before argument or reading of main charge.-Rhodes v. State, 679.

1092(14) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection to opinion testimony not reviewable where there was no certification by trial court.-Harris v. State,

54.

1098 (Tex.Cr.App.) _Statement of facts must be in narrative form.-Fenton v. State, 363.

1099 (6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts filed after time allowed, cannot be considered on appeal.-Keck v. State, 1074.

1038 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Exception to charge for failure to include particular point sufficient-1104(3) (Mo.) Appellant must personally ly saves it for review, though no special charge requested.-Forrester v. State, 40.

1038(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) No error in failing to submit issue of suspended sentence, where no instruction requested.-Melley v. State, 367. 1044 (Ky.) Right to object to misjoinder is waived by failure to require election by demurrer or motion.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 880.

1054(1) (Ky.) Competency of evidence not excepted to cannot be reviewed.-Springs v. Commonwealth, 535.

1054(1) (Mo.) Admission and refusal of evidence not reviewed, in absence of exceptions. -State v. Todd, 939.

see that transcript is in proper form and contains necessary entries.-State v. Little, 926.

Law permitting filing of bill of exceptions any time before appellant must serve abstract in appellate court does not change requirement that transcript show filing in trial court.-Id. 1109(3) (Mo.) Bill of exceptions not considered where transcript does not show filing in trial court. State v. Little, 926.

1109 (3) (Tex. Cr. App.) Appeal dismissed, where caption in transcript does not contain dates of beginning and end of trial term.-Curtis v. State, 362.

1111(2) (Ark.) Statement by court as to demonstration must be accepted as true.-Pendergrass v. State, 914.

1055 (Mo.) Exceptions necessary to re-11(4) (Tex. Cr. App.) Appellate court view prosecuting attorney's argument.-State bound by judge's certificate contradicting recital in appellant's bill of exception.-Simmons v. Dengel, 603. v. State, 392.

1056(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) No error in failing to submit issue of suspended sentence, where no exception taken.-Melley v. State, 367.

1056(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Exception to charge must show it was presented before main charge was read or argument begun.-Rhodes v. State, 679.

1063(1) (Mo.) Bill of exceptions not considered, where motions for new trial and in arrest were not filed until after judgment and sentence.-State v. Baird, 596.

1112 (Mo.) Record of circuit court cannot be impeached on appeal by affidavits foreign to record.-State v. Whalen, 931.

1112 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill prepared by court can be controverted only by bystanders' bill.McKnight v. State, 377.

1115(1) (Mo.App.) Failure to act upon motion to quash search warrant will not be considered in absence of showing of ruling and exceptions.-State v. Graves, 976. for change of Record proper only may be considered in ab-1117 (Mo.) Application sence of motion for new trial and in arrest. venue must be incorporated in bill of exceptions to be reviewed.-State v. Baird, 596. -Id. for continuance 1118 (Mo.) Application must be incorporated in bill of exceptions to be reviewed.-State v. Baird, 596.

1064(1) (Mo.) Motion for new trial held too indefinite for review.-State v. Whitman, 937.

1120(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection to ques-1156(5) (Ark.) Denial of new trial for tion not considered in absence of answer in rec- demonstration by spectators not disturbed unord.--Bowlin v. State, 396. less discretion manifestly abused.-Pendergrass v. State, 914.

1120(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection to opinion testimony not reviewable where not shown in what manner witness lacked knowledge.Harris v. State. 54.

1156 (5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Overruling motion for new trial because of misconduct of jury not to be overturned on appeal unless clearly 1122(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Exception to re- wrong. Todd v. State, 695. fusal of special charges must appear by nota-1159(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Jury's assessment tion or bill of exceptions.-Rhodes v. State, of penalty for aggravated assault within statu679. tory limitations not disturbed.-Windham v. State, 51.

1124(1) (Mo.) Errors assigned in motion for new trial, not included in the record, not considered on appeal.-State v. Delcour, 606.

(E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs. 1129(6) (Mo.) Definite general assignments of error bring up for review admission or rejection of evidence.-State v. Whitman, 937.

1130(4) (Mo.) Duty of appellate court, where accused files no brief, is to examine records to ascertain whether he has had fair trial. -State v. Todd, 939.

(G) Review.

1159(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Issue of fact determined by jury not disturbed on appeal.-Smith v. State, 346.

1159(2) (Ky.) Court of Appeals may reverse conviction flagrantly against evidence.Partin v. Commonwealth, 489.

1159(3) (Mo.) Conviction for robbery will not be reversed where state has made prima facie case.-State v. Dengel, 603.

1159 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Finding of sanity on sufficient evidence conclusive on appeal.-Sagu v. State, 390.

1159(4) (Ky.) Jury is final arbiter of credibility of witnesses.-Bush v. Commonwealth, 522.

1134(2) (Tex. Cr. App.) Refusal of trial 1159(4) (Ky.) Conviction based on relief judge to sustain objection to argument to be of single witness for prosecution contradicted given weight.-Bowlin v. State, 396. by defendant cannot be reversed.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 878.

1134(10) (Ky.) Action of trial court in overruling motion to quash indictment final, and not subject to review for error.-Sowders v. Commonwealth, 187.

1159(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Verdict on question of identity binding on appellate court.-MeKnight v. State, 377.

1160 (Mo.) Approved verdict not disturbed.-State v. Kendricks, 578.

1137(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Irrelevant testimony held not so prejudicial as to be incurable by instruction, and, where defendant objected to in-1166(1) (Ark.) Refusal to require indorsestruction, he cannot complain.-Wells v. State, ment of witness' name on indictment held not reversible error.-Wood v. State, 568.

378.

1144(2) (Mo.) Presumption that trial court duly considered questions presented and found against appellant prevails in absence of contrary information.-State v. Todd, 939.

1144(2) (Tex. Cr. App.) Everything presumed in favor of regularity of proceedings, where no bills of exception nor statement of facts.-Crisman v. State, 343.

1144(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Lack of jurisdiction in county court at law not presumed.-Koehan v. State, 364.

1144(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Ruling of trial court that juror was qualified presumed correct.-Todd v. State, 695.

11662(1) (Ark.) Demonstration by spectators and deputy sheriff held cured by court's action.-Pendergrass v. State, 914.

jurors not examined upon their voir dire not 11662(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal to retire reversible error, unless injury shown.-Blonk v. State, 375.

by prosecution 1167 (5) (Ky.) Election held to cure overruling of demurrer for duplicity.-Dennison v. Commonwealth, 880.

1169(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of evidence as to undisputed facts held immaterial. -Cochrain v. State, 43.

1144(13) (Tenn.) Defendant not testifying 1169(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Erroneous admispresumably guilty.-Baker v. State, 548. sion of testimony not reversible error where same facts are proved by other testimony without objection.-Gurski v. State, 353.

1144(17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where no bills of exception or statement of facts, court will presume facts justified heaviest penalty.-Crisman v. State, 343 (first case).

1169(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of evidence held harmless.-Staton v. State, 356.

1144(17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Everything pre-1169(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Irrelevant testimony sumed in favor of correctness of judgment where no bills of exception nor statement of facts.-Crisman v. State, 343 (third case).

1144(17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Judgment will be presumed correct in absence of statement of facts or bills of exception.-Dorsett v. State. 1075.

held not so prejudicial as to be incurable by instruction.-Wells v. State, 378.

1169(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Withdrawing question and answer rendered admission harmless.-Bowlin v. State, 396.

1169(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of search warrant, affidavit, and return held not reversible error.-Gurski v. State, 353.

1151 (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusing continuance to procure witness after due diligence not reversi-1169(9) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of conble error unless probability of securing him and clusion as to fact proved by other testimony importance of testimony indicate abuse of dis-not reversible error.-Windham v. State. 51. cretion.-Gurski v. State, 353. 1169 (12) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of evi1153(3) (Ark.) Discretion of trial court dence corroborating confession not error, but, in permitting testimony by state after defend-if error. ant rested, not controlled unless abuse shown.-State, 695. was cured by withdrawal.-Todd v. Smith v. State, 555. 1156(2) (Mo.) Appellate court cannot set 1170(1) (Tex. Cr. App.) Refusal to reaside verdiet based upon conflicting evidence; quire sheriff to state upon whose information a trial court may do so.-State v. Whitman, 937. search warrant was secured held not reversible 1156(3) (Ark.) New trial for newly dis- error.-Harris v. State, 54. covered evidence rests in court's discretion.-11702(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Leading questions Pendergrass v. State, 914. do not require reversal in absence of prejudice.

1156(4) (Ark.) Denial of new trial on affi- --Bowlin v. State, 396. davits denied by juror whose conduct was im-11701⁄2(5) (Ky.) Cross-examination of acpeached not reversed.-Pendergrass v. State, used as to immaterial matter held harmless.914. Delong v. Commonwealth, 839.

1141

INDEX-DIGEST

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

1171(1) (Mo.) Argument

of assistant Submission to suggested treatment is not prosecutor held improper but not prejudicial.-condition precedent to recovery of substantial damages for personal injury.-Id. State v. Delcour, 606.

Injured person is not required to undergo Prosecutor's argument that jury represented serious operation for benefit of wrongdoer:-Id. deceased not reversible error.-Id. 1171(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument that ac-62(4) (Mo.App.) Party breaching advercused's father was able to hire high-priced tising contract could not contend that plaintiff lawyers for him held error, but not prejudicial. should have minimized damages by selling space to others.-Barron G. Collier, Inc., v. Domino -Todd v. State, 695, Macaroni Mfg. Co., 981.

To cause reversal, improper argument must be material, and calculated to injure accused. -Id.

1173(2) (Ky.) Failure to define conspiracy in instruction held not prejudicial.-Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.

1173(2) (Ky.) Facts supported by undenied competent testimony need not be submitted.Cornett v. Commonwealth, 540.

(H) Determination

Defendant could not require plaintiff to sell advertising space at less than regular prices to minimize damages for breach of advertising

contract.-Id.

78(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Sums deposited to guarantee performance held intended as liquiand Disposition of dated damages rather than penalty.-Jones v. Mays, 129.

Cause.

ordered 1182 (Tex. Cr. App.) Affirmance when indictment regular and charge submitted law, statement of facts and bills of exception being filed too late to be considered.-Keck v. State, 1074.

1186(1)(Tex.Cr.App.) Cases reversed for argument of counsel only in extreme cases.Bowlin v. State, 396.

1187 (Tex.Cr.App.) Appellate court cannot order prosecution dismissed where indictment is good on face.-Humphries v. State, 374.

V. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

94 (Mo.App.) Awards of exemplary damages are subject to revision.-Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

Punitive damages intended as exemplary, and amount should be proportionate to actual damages.-Id.'

VI. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
(C) Breach of Contract.

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF 120 (4) (Mo.App.) Measure of damages for

CRIME.

≈1216(1) (Ky.) Term does not begin until final judgment and not pending motion for new trial.-Commonwealth v. Gresham, 1038.

breach of contract to advertise in street cars
stated.-Barron G. Collier, Inc., v. Domino
Macaroni Mfg. Co., 981.

VII. INADEQUATE AND EXCESSIVE
DAMAGES.

1216(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Term of imprisonment begins on affirmance and issuance of mandate by appellate court on surrender of accused.128 (Ky.) Unless grossly so, mere exces-Ex parte Underwood, 551.

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

siveness will not authorize court to set verdict aside.-Green River Light & Water Co. v. Beeler, 201.

130(1) (Ky.) $5,000 held not excessive for 10 (Ky.) Strictly construed, and not allow-injuries from burns in boiler explosion.--Green ed to operate beyond class of persons or con- River Light & Water Co. v. Beeler, 201. tracts in regard to which they prevail.-Early 131(5) (Ark.) $2,000 for miscarriage and other injuries held not excessive.-Chicago, R. & Daniel Co. v. Carr, 221. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Comer, 268.

I (Ky.) When telephone contract not confirmed by one party custom held not to author-132 (6) (Ky.) $10,000 for crippling injuries ize recovery.-Early & Daniel Co. v. Carr, 221. to boy's legs held not excessive.-H. T. Whitson Lumber Co. v. Upchurch, 243.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

IV. ENTRY AND APPRAISAL OF GOODS,
BONDS, AND WAREHOUSES.

75 (Mo.App.) Actual value, and not cost price, of imports, governs amount of tariff to be assessed.-Oppenheimer Bros. v. J. L. Price Brokerage Co., 310.

DAMAGES.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GENERAL.
5 (Ky.) "General damages" and "special
damages' "defined.-Moss Jellico Coal Co. v.
American Ry. Express Co., 508.

III. GROUNDS AND SUBJECTS OF COMPEN-
SATORY DAMAGES.

132(8) (Mo.App.) $6,000 not excessive for injuries to clavicle and arm.-Laemore v. Lehrack. 639.

132 (14) (Tex.Civ.App.) $12,500 for loss of eye not excessive.-Davis v. Christmas, 126.

132(15) (Mo.) $1,000 for loss of two fingers held inadequate in view of expenses incurred.-Kelly v. Columbia Box Co., 589.

133 (Ark.) $100 held to compensate husband for wife's injury.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Comer, 268.

(A) Direct or Remote, Contingent, or Pro-showing injuries due to fright alone.-Union spective Consequences or Losses. 40(1) (Mo.App.) Lost profits recoverable where certain and definite.-Barron G. Collier, Inc.. v. Domino Macaroni Mfg. Co., 981. of profits for 40 (2) (Mo.App.) Loss breach of contract recoverable if they would have been made had contract been performed. -Barron G. Collier, Inc., v. Domino Macaroni Mfg. Co., 981.

(B) Aggravation. Mitigation, and Reduc

tion of Loss.

62(2) (Ky.) Injured person required to exercise only ordinary care in selecting physician.-H. T. Whitson Lumber Co. v. Upchurch, 243.

(B) Evidence.

184 (Ky.) Evidence held not to show failure to minimize damages to household goods.Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wood, 871.

185(1) (Ark.) Evidence held sufficient to support judgment for plaintiff in action for personal injury.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Comer. 268.

187 (Ky.) Plaintiff not entitled to recover for permanent impairment of earning power. when injuries not shown to be permanent.-

Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. O'Connell, | ter, despite inconsistent provision; "either." 237. -Id.

188(1) (Ky.) Evidence repairs and new parts were needed is sufficient to show at least IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE. nominal damage.-Robson v. Zumstein Taxicab 194(1) (Mo.) Due Co., S72. acknowledgment and certification only prima facie evidence of delivery.-Harrison v. Edmonston, 586.

Evidence as to cost of repairs without proof of reasonableness or difference in value is insufficient to sustain a verdict.-Id.

194 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumption that deed was delivered at its date held to warrant finding that deed was delivered on date of its acknowledgment.-Brown v. Rodgers, 750. Presumed that deed was delivered at time of

(C) Proceedings for Assessment. 210(1) (Ky.) Instruction predicated on finding that injuries resulted from fright alone its date.-Id. held not authorized and properly refused.-208 (2) (Mo.) Delivery held not made.Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. O'Connell, Harrison v. Edmonston, 586. 237.

DEPOSITARIES.

210(2) (Ky.) Injury not pleaded provable to show violence of explosion and resultant injury, but jury should have been instructed 7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Recital in bond that bank not to allow damages therefor.-Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. O'Connell, 237.

of

214 (Ky.) Instruction on mitigation damages for refusal to undergo operation held favorable to defendant.-H. T. Whitson Lumber Co. v. Upchurch, 243.

DEAD BODIES.

7 (Mo.) Mother must, as principal, participate in secret burial of child before others can be convicted as accessories.-State v. Baker, 956.

chosen depository for "scholastic year" held not part of conditional bond limiting term of appointment.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Tarbutton, 435.

Stipulation in bond, providing for interest on average daily balances on school district funds, held not to render bond more burdensome than statute contemplated.-Id.

What must and must not be read in statutory bond.-Id.

as treasurer of school district funds was not in That statutory bond executed by bank acting exact words of statute held not to invalidate it.-Id.

Statute defining offense of secretly burying child to conceal birth does not require mother 13 (Tex.Civ.App.) Undertaking of surety on to herald event of birth.-Id.

Acts of parents in concealing birth of child to their daughter by secret burial not imputable to daughter, in absence of acquiescence. -Id.

When knowledge from history of act of burial of her child to conceal birth held not basis for criminal charge against mother.-Id.

(D) Delivery.

56(1)(Tex.Civ.App.) Actual

or

district funds held to continue until bank's sucbond executed by bank as depository of school cessor qualified and selected.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Tarbutton, 435.

Surety on bank's bond held not relieved from paying interest after bank closed its doors.-Id.

14 (Tex.Civ.App.) What evidence held sufficient to show breach of statutory bond executed by bank as treasurer of school district funds.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Tarbutton, 435.

DEPOSITIONS.

84 (Ky.) Permitting plaintiff to retake deposition held not abuse of discretion.-Duncan's Ex'rs v. Porch, 526.

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
See Executors and Administrators; Wills.

III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF HEIRS
AND DISTRIBUTEES.

(A) Nature and Establishment of Rights
in General.

90(1) (Ky.) Heirs of purchaser who had delivery not essential; "delivery."-Brown v. cannot have conveyance canceled.-Hardin v. manual title conveyed to another to defraud creditor Rodgers, 750.

Johnson. 544.

56 (2) (Mo.) Delivery, matter of intention.90 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Heir held not guilty -Harrison v. Edmonston, 586. of laches in asserting claim.-Shear Co. v.

56(3) (Mo.) Parting with all control essen- Stuth, 158. tial for delivery.-Harrison v. Edmonston, 586.90(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Laches of heir in as

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 97 (Tex.Com.App.) Words repugnant to parties' intent rejected as insensible.-Shugart v. Shugart, 328.

serting right held question of fact for trial judge. Shear Co. v. Stuth, 158.

(B) Advancements. 101 (Ky.) After sons' debts forgiven by father, sons not obligated to father's estate.Gray v. Gray, 172.

DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.

(C) Estates and Interests Created. 128 (Tex.Com.App.) Rule in Shelley's Case inapplicable, where intent, by use of words "heirs," "heirs of the body," etc., was not to See Appeal and Error, 781-797. comprehend whole line of succession to life holder. Shugart v. Shugart, 328.

Rule in Shelley's Case held inapplicable; "heirs," "heirs after her," "heirs of their body." -Id.

Deed construed as conveying deceased daughter's interest in remainder to surviving daugh

I. VOLUNTARY.

26 (Tex.Civ.App.) Dismissal of initial carrier sued jointly with another held not error when not served and not appearing and not pleaded into court by the other.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.