error, where the applicant did not testify in the case.-Gray v. State, 188 S. W. 820. clusive of testimony of accomplice, held insufficient to sustain conviction.-Davis v. State, 188 S. W. 985. 419, 420(1) (Tex. Cr.App.) In view of latitude given defendant to prove prosecutrix un-511(2) (Ky.) Uncorroborated testimony of an chaste, court properly refused to permit him to accomplice is insufficient to sustain conviction, answer question whether he knew or had heard and corroborative evidence must tend to connect of any one having had intercourse with prose- accused with the crime, and not merely to show cutrix.-Johnson v. State, 188 S. W. 426. that a crime has been committed.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. (K) Confessions. 419, 420(10) (Ark.) Testimony of a witness that a person alleged by the state to be the defendant's barkeeper had stated that he was the proprietor held inadmissible as hearsay.-Rollins 517(1) (Ark.) The admission of testimony of v. State, 188 S. W. 560. an alleged confession in the presence of four witnesses, the court having instructed the jury to the effect that no weight to this alleged confession could be given without first finding that it was voluntarily made, held not error.-Thomas v. State, 188 S. W. 805. (H) Documentary Evidence and Exclu 419, 420(10) (Ky.) In prosecution for murder, objection held properly sustained to answer to question to witness whether certain person had not stated that he had shot the bullet found in tree near scene of crime, as answer would have been hearsay.-Mullins v. Commonwealth, 188519(3) (Ky.) Where accused while awaiting S. W. 1079. trial in police court admitted in response to question that he was the man who sold corn to one identifying him, held that, despite the Ansion of Parol Evidence Thereby. ti-Sweating Act, evidence of his statement was 434 (Ark.) Physician's entry showing pro- admissible.-Commonwealth v. Long, 188 S. W. fessional services on prosecutrix's father, made 334. on the day succeeding the services, and his testi-531(3) (Ark.) To render confession admismony that he knew from the entry that a child sible, its voluntary character may be shown by had been born to the father on that day, with a mere preponderance of evidence.-Hall.v. testimony identifying prosecutrix as such child, State, 188 S. W. 801. is competent to show the date of her birth.James v. State, 188 S. W. 806. The testimony of father of prosecutrix concerning an entry in the family Bible is competent evidence as to the age of the prosecutrix. -Id. 438 (Ky.) A picture or photograph may be used to describe a person, place, or thing if important or relevant.-Elmendorf v. wealth, 188 S. W. 483. Common 438 (Tex.Cr.App.) Photograph of the scene of the homicide taken a year after the difficulty, on a showing that the conditions were practically the same then as at the time of the homicide, was admissible.-Hassell v. State, 188 S. W. 991. 444 (Ky.) Maps, diagrams, models, sketches, and photographs offered in evidence must first be proven to be correct before they are admissible as evidence.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. (I) Opinion Evidence. 531(3) (Ark.) Evidence held to justify a untarily made.-Thomas v. State, 188 S. W. finding that an alleged confession was vol805. 534(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Though an admission was made by accused while under arrest and without warning, it is admissible, under specific provision of Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, when it states the place the knife with which the crime was committed may be found and it was found there.-Freeman v. State, 188 S. W. 425. (L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination or at Former Trial. 542 (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of one given at a former trial with due opportunity for cross-examination is admissible on a subsequent trial after death of such witness.-Bergin v. State, 188 S. W. 423. 543(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal to permit defendant to read to the jury the testimony of a witness taken upon a former trial, which evi448(12) (Mo.) Witnesses for the state as to dence did not show the said witness was out admissions and confessions by accused should of the jurisdiction of the court, was not error. state only what he said, and should not be per--Berry v. State, 188 S. W. 997. mitted to testify to their own opinions, infer-543(2) (Ark.) The depositions of persons ences, and conclusions.-State v. Pate, 188 S. who testified in the examining court may be read W. 139. 507(1)_(Ky.) An accomplice is one who partakes in the commission of a crime, and includes principals, accessories before the fact, and aiders and abettors.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. 507(3) (Ky.) An accessory after the fact is not an accomplice.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. on the trial, on a showing that they lived out of the state, that subpoenas issued for them, and that the sheriff made diligent inquiry for them, and reported that they had departed the State.Herman v. State, 188 S. W. 541. (M) Weight and Sufficiency. 570(1) (Ky.) Evidence held to sustain verdict that accused, at the time of the offense and at the time of the trial, was not criminally irresponsible.-Davidson v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 631. XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTIN UANCE. The mere fact that witness burned a cap worn by the culprit, and thrown into witness' house after the offense, did not make him an accomplice, but only an accessory after the fact.-Id. 508(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Pen. Code 1911, arts. 590(2) (Mo.) Where counsel appointed to 10, 91, and Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 791, held defend accused charged with murder had three to make incompetent witnesses for each other, weeks in which to prepare for trial, the refusal persons prosecuted for the same offense, though of a continuance held not error.-State v. Webby complaint and information, instead of in- er, 188 S. W. 122. dictment in its technical sense.-Sola v. State, 596(1) (Ark.) There is no error in refusing 188 S. W. 1005. a continuance requested by the accused for the 510 (Ky.) Uncorroborated testimony of an purpose of securing the attendance of witnessaccomplice is insufficient to sustain conviction.-es whose testimony will be merely cumulative. Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. -James v. State, 188 S. W. 806. 511(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for bur-597(1) (Mo.) Application for a continuance glarizing railroad car under control of railroad of trial for murder was properly overruled, agent, without his consent, etc., evidence, ex- where the affidavit showed the, testimony of the absent witnesses would be as to facts show-637 (Ky.) One appearing on his trial on ing that defendant did not kill deceased on the criminal charge is entitled to be free from hand22d day of the month, where all the testimony cuffs, etc., unless there is evident danger of esshowed the murder was done on the 19th.-cape, and to freedom from any physical bonds State v. Weber, 188 S. W. 122. which might tend to confuse his mental faculties, or to create a prejudice against him.Blair v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 390. 598(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Continuance for absence of witnesses is properly denied, where no diligence at all is shown.-Vansickle v. State, 656(3) (Mo.) In prosecution for obtaining 188 S. W. 1006. personalty by false pretenses, remark of court, ≈598(7) (Ky.) Under Ky. St. § 367, Cr. Code when defendant's offer in evidence of contract Prac. § 188, refusal of commonwealth's motion of third parties to make him a deed to propfor continuance for absence of important wit- erty which he had agreed to exchange for proseness because no written request had been filed cutrix was first made, that it did not show "any with the clerk for a subpoena held error.-Com-right_or_title" was improper.-State v. Eudaly, monwealth v. Adkins, 188 S. W. 401. 188 S. W. 110. (C) Reception of Evidence. 603(2) (Ky.) In prosecution for murder, denial of continuance to defendant for absence of one of his three attorneys held proper, in view 665(2) (Ky.) Though witnesses are placed of supporting affidavit which failed to show par- under the rule, it is within the discretion of the ticulars of absence and reason for inability of court to permit deputy sheriffs of the county, other attorneys to conduct the case.-Mullins who are also witnesses, to remain in the room v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 1079. during the trial.-Davidson v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 631. 603(7) (Mo.) An affidavit for continuance for absence of witness, which averred that such 670 (Ky.) In prosecution for murder, rulwitness would testify that defendant had noth- ing refusing to permit witness to answer quesing to do with the killing and was not guilty, tion was not improper where there is no avowheld insufficient as not stating facts justifying al as to what the answer would have been.-such conclusion.-State v. Weber, 188 S. W. Mullins v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 1079. (D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions. 122. 603(9) (Ark.) An affidavit merely showing that desired witnesses were without the state, but failing to show any facts as to their possible return, is not conclusive of the right to continuance.-James v. State, 188 S. W. 806. 614(1) (Ky.) In trial for murder, trial court's refusal to grant a third continuance on the grounds of absence of an alleged eyewitness for defendant held not an abuse of discretion.-Hunter v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 472. In trial for murder, refusal to grant a third continuance on the ground of defendant's ill health held not an abuse of discretion.-Id. XII. TRIAL. 696(6) (Ark.) Where accused did not request the withdrawal of an application made by his mother for letters of guardianship containing statement of age of prosecuting witness admitted in evidence until after the conclusion of argument, refusal of court to instruct the jury to disregard the writing was not prejudicial error.-Gray v. State, 188 S. W. 820. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. ~720(1) (Mo.) In prosecution for obtaining personalty by false pretenses, repeated references of state's counsel to "bum checks," and that defendant had secured money thereon through false pretenses, held improper.-State v. Eudaly, 188 S. W. 110. (A) Preliminary Proceedings. 619 (Ky.) The commonwealth of Kentucky and the city of Louisville cannot join as plain-722(3) (Ark.) In fixing the punishment for tiffs in the same warrant against a defendant carnal abuse, it is not improper for the jury to and prosecute him under same warrant for consider that the accused is a married man, violation of a statute and violation of a city and argument to that effect and that he had ordinance passed in conformity with provisions a two months' old baby at the time of the of statute, and, where such misjoinder appears, offense is not improper.-James v. State, 188 the trial court should require an election if time- S. W. 806. ly motion is made.-City of Louisville v. Coal-723(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) It is no ground for ter, 188 S. W. 853. 623 (Ky.) One accused of an offense and having had one inquest as to sanity could not, on his release from the asylum and upon being brought to trial, have another inquest as to his sanity as a matter of right, but allowance of such inquest was within the discretion of the trial court.-Davidson v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 631. One accused of an offense and having had one inquest as to insanity is only entitled to introduce a copy of the record and verdict of the inquest and to introduce other witnesses on the same question, and to the proper instruction that if he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense he should be acquitted.-Id. reversal that the assistant criminal district attorney argued "that the only way to stop redhanded murders was to write verdicts of guilty that will stand out as the noonday sun."-Bergin v. State, 188 S. W. 423. 726 (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument that acquittal would be saying "Thou shalt kill" is not improper, when in answer to argument of accused's counsel that the jury ought to acquit, if only, to stamp with disapproval as a disgrace to his race the deceased white man, killed in a locality occupied by negro prostitutes.-Freeman v. State, 188 S. W. 425. (F) Province of Court and Jury in General. (B) Course and Conduct of Trial in Gen-sanity may be rebutted by oral evidence on a eral. 740 (Ky.) The finding on an inquest as to trial for a criminal offense, and the question of insanity is for the jury.-Davidson v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 631. 633(1) (Ky.) The circuit judges of the state are necessarily and properly vested with a large power and discretion in directing the control 741(1) (Ky.) If there is any evidence of and disposition of criminal cases.-Common- guilt or a fact necessary to establish guilt, the wealth v. Adkins, 188 S. W. 401. question to which the evidence is directed should be submitted to the jury.-Huddleston v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 398. 636(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) In misdemeanor case in which a jail penalty is part of the punishment, it is not necessary that defendant be present when the verdict is received, under Code Cr. Proc.-Booher v. State, 188 S. W. 977. ~741(1) (Ky.) The jury is the judge of the weight of the evidence.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 742(1) (Ky.) The jury is the judge of cred-vidual accounts had been fasified by entries ibility of the witnesses.-Elmendorf v. Common- showing overdrafts was proper, because the inwealth, 188 S. W. 483. struction_singled out certain isolated facts.State v. Pate, 188 S. W. 139. 742(2) (Ky.) Where, upon the evidence, as a matter of law, the court cannot hold that the 811(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) It cannot be said witness was an accomplice in the commission that the court gave undue prominence to the of the crime, it is a question for the jury upon issue of provoking the difficulty, where he prethe evidence, under proper instructions of the sented it but once.-Bergin v. State, 188 S. W. court.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 423. 483. 753(2) (Ky.) A motion for a peremptory instruction could not raise the question of former conviction.-Fugate v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 324. 759(4) (Ark.) Under Const. art. 7, § 23, prohibiting instructions on the weight of evidence, in a prosecution for grand larceny, an instruction that if defendant was found in possession of recently stolen property, which was unexplained, this evidence was sufficient to convict him, held reversible error.-Mitchell v. State, 188 S. W. 805. 761(2) (Ark.) In prosecution for selling liquor under Acts 1915, p. 98, an instruction that if defendant checked up the cash he would be guilty, using the word "check" in the sense of verifying the accuracy of the cash on hand, held erroneous as assuming that by so doing he was assisting in the business.-Marsh v. State, 188 S. W. 815. for 814(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution theft as bailee and embezzlement, where proof did not tend to show defendant had any interest as bailee in the money he stole, court properly refused his charge that if he had any interest he would not be guilty.-Williams v. State, 188 S. W. 430. 814(8, 9) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for violating local option law, court's refusal to submit defendant's plea of former jeopardy unsupported by evidence held not erroneous.Stephens v. State, 188 S. W. 976. 814(15) (Ky.) In the absence of evidence tending to show that witness was an accomplice, the issue whether he was should not be submitted to the jury, nor should the court instruct as to sufficiency of corroborative evidence under Cr. Code Prac. § 241.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 483. 822(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In considering objec tions to any paragraph or portion of the charge, 763, 764(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) A charge clearly it is necessary to consider the whole of the upon the weight of the evidence was properly re-charge in connection with the paragraph objectfused.-Berry v. State, 188 S. W. 997. ed to.-Berry v. State, 188 S. W. 997. (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions. 770(1) (Ky.) Every person accused of crime has a right to have the jury instructed on whole law of the case.-Hunter v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 472. 823(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) The charge, "If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant with a deadly weapon assaulted deceased," is not objectionable as implying that the knife used was a deadly weapon, in view of further instruction that, unless the knife used was a deadly weapon, accused was 770(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) The state, as well as guilty of no graver offense than manslaughter. the defendant, has the right to have issues in-Bergin v. State, 188 S. W. 423. its favor submitted properly.-Berry v. State, 188 S. W. 997. 770(2) (Ky.) A fact necessary to a conviction, when controverted in the evidence, should be submitted to the jury under an appropriate instruction.-Huddleston v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 332. 823(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Any error in not submitting alibi held harmless, the jury being instructed that the circumstances must show to a moral certainty that accused, and no other person, committed the offense, and exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.-Cozart v. State, 188 S. W. 750. 774 (Ky.) It is proper, when evidence jus-823(8) (Ky.) In prosecution for conspiring tifies it, to submit an instruction on the drunk- and aiding in the killing of the deceased, failure en condition of defendant at the time of com- to give an instruction embracing defendants' mission of acts charged to show that he could theory of self-defense held not prejudicial, not have had any criminal intent.-Hayes v. where under instructions given, they had the full Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 415. benefit of such defects.-Rucker v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 367. Where defendant had sufficient memory to give a connected narrative of everything that happened and to relate in detail facts that might excuse his conduct, his unsupported evidence that he was drunk will not entitle him to an instruction on this subject.-Id. (H) Requests for Instructions. 824(4) (Ky.) Where the evidence required an instruction submitting the question of the agency of defendant's son in making sale, a request for such instruction was not necessary.— Huddleston v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 332. the-825(1) (Mo.) An instruction cannot be complained of for omission to direct as to a point on which accused asked for no instruction and which he did not properly bring before the court.-State v. Herring, 188 S. W. 169. 775(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) A cause should not be reversed for refusal of charge on alibi, unless, in light of all testimony, evidence excludes ory of defendant's presence at place of crime. -Woods v. State, 188 S. W. 980. In prosecution for aggravated assault and battery upon female, refusal of charge on alibi held not error.-Id. 778(4) (Ky.) Form of instruction on presumption of innocence stated by the Court of Appeals.-Taylor v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 1087. 829(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for murder in first degree, court was not required to multiply instructions upon the same subject, where the law had been correctly and fully stated in those given. McCown v. State, 188 S. W. 547. 780(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) The usual stereotyped 829(9) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for form of charge with reference to accomplice violating local option law, refusal of charge on testimony in seduction cases is not erroneous. burden of proof being on state throughout, and -Self v. State, 188 S. W. 978. jury's duty to acquit if they have reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, held not erroneous, in view of other charge substantially to same effect.-Stephens v. State, 188 S. W. 976. 805(1) (Mo.) An instruction referring the jury to the information for matters not in the instruction, which are necessary for their consideration, is erroneous.-State v. Herring, 188829(18) (Ark.) Where a given instruction S. W. 169. 811(2) (Mo.) The refusal of instructions of fered by defendant that the charge of embezzlement could not be sustained by proof that indi properly declares the law on the point, it is not error to refuse to give a requested instruction as to reasonable doubt.-Moore v. State, 188 S. W. 3. 830 (Ark.) Refusal of instruction on ne-further proceedings in the original cause.-Wilcessity of proof that confession was made with-liams v. State, 188 S. W. 826. out fear or coercion was not error, where er-1001 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. roneous statement was included in instruction 1911, arts. 869, 871, 867, 872, 875, and 877, as requested.-Hall v. State, 188 S. W. 801. 830 (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal of a requested charge which did not state a correct legal proposition applicable to the testimony, was not error.-Berry v. State, 188 S. W. 997. (I) Objections to Instructions or Refusal Thereof, and Exceptions. 840 (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused or his counsel may waive right to examine the charge before it is given to the jury.-Freeman v. State, 188 S. W. 425. (J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury. 854(9) (Ark.) That a juror obtained permission from officer in charge to go a block and a half away and return his child to its mother, without conversation as to case with any one during his three minutes' absence and without being out of the view of jurors and officer, held not a separation of jurors.-McCown v. State, 188 S. W. 547. (K) Verdict. to jurisdiction, proceedings after conviction, and collection of fines in misdemeanor cases, where judgment is rendered for a fine against one accused of a misdemeanor in failing to work roads, but execution is delayed for a year, he may nevertheless be taken at any time before paying the judgment on capias pro fine, though execution does not issue.-Ex parte Cook, 188 S. W. 979. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND (B) Presentation and Reservation in Low- jection, any error in permitting employed coun1035(3) (Ky.) In the absence of timely obsel to take charge of and conduct the trial and make argument for the commonwealth instead of the commonwealth's attorney is not reviewable.-Taylor v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 1087. admission of testimony as to trailing by blood1036(1) (Ark.) Accused cannot complain of hounds, or of failure to instruct to disregard it, where he failed to object to the admission or to request the instruction.-Padgett v. State, 188 S. W. 1158. 878(2) (Tex. Cr.App.) Where accused was charged with cattle theft, and with receiving stolen property, knowing it was stolen, a general 1037(1) (Ky.) Rulings where the record verdict of guilty could be applied to either count. does not show that the court placed limits upon -Longoria v. State, 188 S. W. 987. the argument, or that appellant asked for any to limiting the argument, any objection to limitgiven time to argue, or that he took an exception ing the same cannot be reviewed.-Taylor v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 1087. 878(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the jury found accused guilty as charged in the indictment, charging theft and receiving stolen property, the court properly applied the verdict to the count, charging theft established by the evidence.Longoria v. State, 188 S. W. 988. error in permitting improper remarks from In the absence of timely objection, alleged counsel for the commonwealth in argument to the jury is not reviewable.-Id. 883 (Tex.Cr.App.) A jury should specify in its verdict the grade of the offense of which ac-1037 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) The action of the cused is convicted in cases where more than one trial court in permitting the district attorney degree or grade of the offense included in the to make a statement is not reviewable where indictment is given in charge to the jury.- accused merely objected to it, and did not reKinchen v. State, 188 S. W. 1004. XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL 922(7) (Tex. Cr.App.) Exception to alleged erroneous charge, set up for first time in motion for new trial, is too late.-Freeman v. State, 188 S. W. 425. quest the court to instruct the jury not to consider it.-Longoria v. State, 188 S. W. 988. 1038(2) (Ky.) In a prosecution for burglary, failure of court to admonish jury that evidence as to the character of defendant is only to affect his credibility as a witness is not reversible error unless by exception or objection or motion made at the time attention of court 939(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) New trial will not be is called to necessity for so admonishing jury.granted for newly discovered evidence, where Hayes v. Commonwealth, 188 S. W. 415. no sufficient diligence in attempting to procure 1043(2) (Ark.) Mere general objection before the evidence for trial is shown, nor any excuse and after testimony of detective as to congiven for failure to exercise diligence.-Newman versations with accused, some of which was v. State, 188 S. W. 426. competent, does not avail accused even as to the 941(1) (Ark.) Motions for new trial on new-objectionable portions, which should be the ly discovered evidence, which is cumulative subject of specific objections.-Padgett v. State, merely, are addressed to the sound discretion of 188 S. W. 1158. the trial court.-Paul v. State, 188 S. W. 555.1043(2) (Mo.) Judgment in a criminal case 942(2) (Ky.) Affidavits that a witness, whose testimony was admitted only on credibility of accused, made statements contradictory of her testimony are insufficient on which to grant new trial.-Elmendorf v. Commonwealth. 188 S. W. 483. 956(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, not supported by affidavit, cannot be considered. -Gomez v. State, 188 S. W. 991. XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, FINAL COMMITMENT. AND 998 (Ark.) Where one convicted of murder, sentenced, and serving his term, on being brought into court refused to testify against bis alleged accessory after the fact, the court could not set aside the conviction, sentence him to solitary confinement for contempt, and order his return to court after serving the sentence, for cannot be reversed for improper admission of evidence and improper remarks of state's counsel and court, where sufficient objections and exceptions thereto were not made and preserved on trial.-State v. Eudaly, 188 S. W. 110.. 1043(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) The court, on reviewing rulings on evidence, must consider only the objections to the evidence made below.Longoria v. State, 188 S. W. 987. 1055 (Ark.) If the court fails to properly control argument of prosecuting attorney and to direct disregard of his improper remarks, exception to ruling is necessary for complaint on appeal.-Paul v. State, 188 Š. W. 555. 1055 (Mo.) The failure of the court to adnonish the state's attorney as to improper argument cannot be reviewed when not excepted to.-State v. Miller, 188 S. W. 87. 1063(1) (Ky.) In prosecution of an infant for his crime, no objection in the trial court to For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER its jurisdiction being necessary, motion for new | though filed after the 90 days.—Vansickle v. 490. 1064(6) (Ky.) Alleged misconduct on part of 1064(7) (Mo.) Ground in a motion for new 1092(13) (Tex.Cr.App.) Ordinarily no bill 1095 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions filed 1097(4) (Tex. Cr.App.) In the absence of a 1065 (Ky.) In prosecution of an infant, for when the duty devolves upon it to prepare state- 1086(4) (Ky.) In the absence of a showing 1086(14) (Ark.) Where defendant complains 1090(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record is ment of facts will be considered unless properly 1102 (Tex.Cr.Ann.) Statement of facts filed 1104(3) (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, § 5309, requir- 1090(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where no statement 1090(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of testi- ~1106(2) (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, § 5309, requir- 1090(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objections to rulings1115(2) (Ark.) Where defendant complains W. 1001. that court erred in failing to sustain a peremp- 1090(16) (Tex.Cr.App.) Questions presented 1091(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions 1091(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a bill of ex- given in the motion for new trial for newly dis- (G) Review. 1137(5) (Ark.) Where counsel for defendant 1137(5) (Ky.) Where accused fully cross-ex- |