Obrázky stránek

Intent to steal inferable, where no other motive appears. Stead

man vs. State, 736(2). Judge absenting himself from bench pending argument, no ground

for new trial when. O'Shields vs. State, 301. Jury must accept the law as laid down and expounded to them by

the court. Hunt vs. State, 140(1). Justifiable homicide ; 824331-3 and 24334, should be charged, when.

Cloud vs. State, 449. Larceny after trust: intrusted by E. L. to apply for use of I. L. not

sustained by proof that it was I. L's. money, and intrusted by him to defendant by E. L. as his agent. McCrary vs.

State, 334. Larcency from house: circumstantial evidence here sufficient to

connect drayman as particeps criminie. Wynn vs. State, 743. Larceny from railroad car: evidence here sustains conviction for

breaking and stealing. Wright vs. State, 745. Larcency from railroad car: evidence here warranted conviction

for a misdemeanor under 84419. Burley vs. State, 741(1. Larcency from railroad car: misdemeanor, conviction for, under

84419, being no proof that car was broken, or if broken, that

defendant did it. Burley vs. State, 741(2). Liquors: alcohol is a spirituous and intoxicating liquor, and courts

will take judicial cognizance of the fact. Snider vs. State,

753. Liquors : beer is intoxicating as matter of law. Ibid. 755. Liquors : druggist furnishing alcohol to minor, amenable under

24540(a). Ibid. 753. Liquors, intoxicating; proof required where not well-known and

recognized. Ibid. Liquor: local option ; indictment need not allege, nor proof show,

that law is operative in that county by adoption of the peo-
ple. Combs vs. State, 780.
Same: Whether law in force is for court to say, and not for

the jury. Ibid 780(a). Liquor, selling to minor, conviction for, not bar prosecution, on

same transaction, of selling without license. Blair 18. State,

629. Liquor, selling to minor; no defence that he had no parent or guar

dian. Ibid. 628. Malice, express: charge that certain things “would be evidence of express malice," not reversible error, when.

Starke is. State, 593(3).

Murder: adultery with wife, killing as a punishment for past, is

murder. Cloud v8. State, 450.

Same: If to prevent adultery, justifiable. Ibid. Murder: circumstantial evidence here sufficient to show mother

killed newly born child. Echols vs. State, 696. Murder: evidence here sustains verdict. Starke vs. State, 593(1). Murder: malice, express; charge that certain things “would be

evidence of express malice," not reversible error, when

* Ibid. 593(3). Murder: previous difficulty between accused and deceased admis

sible, though friendly after. Ibid. 593(2). Murder: provocation by words; wife to vex husband stating he

was not father of children, not reduce offence. Fry 18.
State, 646(2).
Same: Effect of his honest belief of the truth of her

statement, not decided. Ibid. 646(3). Murder: provocation by words; 24325 properly charged, where

prisoner, in statement, recited words as excuse for killing.

Ibid. 645(1). Murder: sayings of bystander, when hat drawn out of well, ten

days after killing, that it belonged to son of deceased, hear

say and inadmissible. Woolfolk vs. State, 551(1). Murder: wife unchaste or bad, not justify homicide nor reduce its

grade in absence of sudden heat of passion, warrantably

excited. Fry vs. State, 646(4). “Other instances which stand upon same footing,” etc. 1334 dis

cussed. Cloud vs. State, 449. Perjury: corroboration of prosecutrix held sufficient, here. Fler

ister vs. State, 768(1). Preparation, time for, no error to refuse to grant further time,

when. Parker v8. State, 332(2). Presumption that indictment was regularly returned, not exist if

minutes show no return at all. Bowen 18. Stats, 483. Previous difficulty between accused and deceased admissible, though friendly after.

Starke v8. State, 593(2). Recommend to life imprisonment or not, responsibility to, is on

jury, and judge may so charge. Fry vs. State, 646(6). Res gestä sayings which are part of, admissible. Shropshire vs. State,

589(2). Searching prisoner, discoveries made by, though compelled, admis

sible. Woolfolk vs. State, 552(6). Selling liquor to minors : clerk, sale by, is within 24540(a). Snider

vs. State, 754(3).
Same: Druggist furnishing alcohol to minor, amenable

under 24540(a). Ibid. 753.

Selling liquor to minor: evidence here sustains verdict. Reid vs.

State, 760(2). Simple larceny: fraud, mere possession of goods obtained by, and

converted, is larceny. Harris vs. State, 758. Statement of prisoner, contradict, State may, by witness already ex®

amined, though it involves repetition of some of his former

testimony. McKinne vs. State, 165(3). Statement, provocation by words to justify killing being suggested

in, court right to charge 21325. Fry v8. State, 645(1). Special plea denying that indictment was regularly returned, error

to strike, here. Bowen us. State, 483. Threat made by third person against persons killed, two weeks be

fore killing, properly excluded, when. Woolfolk vs. State,

553(8). Trespass : cropper removing and selling crop, not indictable under

24140, though title reserved in landlord. Padgett vs. Slate,

446. Variance: intrusted by E. L. to apply for use of I. L., not sustained

by proof that it was I. L's. money, and entrusted by him to defendant through E. L. as his agent. McCrary ts. State,

334. Voluntary manslaughter : husband killing to prevent sexual inter

course with wife, 84334 should be charged, when. Cloud vs. State, 444.

CROPPERS. See Landlord and Tenant.

CROPS. See Distress Warrant.
Possession, sufficient proof of, that it was on tenant's premises, when

levied on. Andrew vs. Stewart, 53(1). Rent, crop produced on any part of the rented premises, liable for

entire. Ibid. 53(3).
Same: That it was produced by a subtenant, not alter case,

unless. Ibid. Rent; note here was a contract for the payment of rent only, though

adapted for advances also. Andrew vs. Stewart, 53(4).


DAMAGES. See Measure of Damages.

Advice of counsel, to mitigate, must be given upon a full and fair

statement of the facts. Shores vs. Brooks, 469(3).

Same: Numerous cases cited and considered. Ibid. 475. Alley, erecting house over; evidence sufficient to show special

damage here to complainant. Cohen vs. Bank, 723.

Charge upon, duty of judge to, in proper case; and statement “I

have done so because I cannot know how you will find,"

error. Bray vs. Latham, 640(3). County not liable in, for detaining steamer by river bridge. White

Company vs. County, 47(2). Defective machinery. See Measure of Damages. Delay in delivering freight; no recovery for, if proceeds sufficient

to cover amount of draft advanced by plaintiff. Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(2).

Same: Profits anticipated not recoverable. Ibid. Delay in delivering machinery by manufacturers. See Measure of

Damages. Freight injured in transit (grates broken); must appear how many,

and extent of injury. Allanta & West Point Railroad vs.

Texas Grate Co. 602(5). Health already impaired, a tort to, is redressed by giving damages

for any further impairment, or obstruction to recovery from

existing disease. Bray vs. Latham, 640(2). Interest not recoverable on punitive damages. Western & Atlantic

Railroad vs. Young, 414.
Interest not added to discretionary damages for personal injury.

Ibid. 397(1).
Same: Only special damages computable on evidence of

actual values allowable on. Ibid. Justification, plea of, filed and not sustained, damages how assessed.

Rigden vs. Jordan, 674. Machinery defective, and delivery delayed, are both matters for ra

ducing contract price. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 93(1). Mitigation, advice of counsel in, discussed. Shores vs. Brooks

475(3). Profits anticipated, on freight delayed in delivery, not recoverable.

Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(2). Profits, possible, of person to whom telegram sent, not delivered

promptly, not recoverable. Clay is. Western Union, 285. Punitive, recoverable where landlord breaks house and seizes ten

ant's cotton, though he fairly applies proceeds to lien debt.
SI vs. Brooks, 468(1).
Same: And so, if he seizes property sold him by tenant,

without first demanding. Ibid. 469(2). Recoupment for defective kind, and delayed delivery, of cotton

seed oil-miil machinery, not waived by receiving and using.
Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 94(7).
Same: Nor will sale of oil-mill defeat right to recoup such

damages against contract price of machinery. Ibid.

Remote, are not too, if reasonably in contemplation of parties when

contract was made. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 93(3).
Same: As to cotton-seed deteriorating by delay in delivery

of oil-mill machinery. Ibid. Servant discharged pending term may sue before expiration of.

Roberts vs. Rigden, 440(1).

Same: Damages, how ascertained. Ibid. Sewers or grading, from building; not recoverable, prior to consti

tution of 1877, unless done unskillfully. Alkinson vs. City,

625. Sickness, wrongfully to cause, aggravate or protract, is an injury to

health, for which damages are recoverable. Bray vs. La

tham, 644. Telegraph message; company not liable for possible profits of per

son to whom sent. Clay is. Western Union, 285. Time of essence; parol admissible to show that time stated in con

tract for delivery of oil-mill machinery, was so. l'an Win-
kle vs. Wilkins, 94(4).
Same: Also to show laying in supply of cotton-seed was in

contemplation of both parties. Ibid.


Conditional sale, not duly recorded, stands as to subsequent

creditors of purchaser as an absolute sale. Steen vs. Harris,

681(1). Creditor, not in judgment, cannot pursue in equity goods in hands

of fraudulent purchaser from debtor, when. Manheim vs.
Claflin, 129(2).
Same: His remedy is by attachment under 23297. Ibid.
Same: And even if he needed equitable relief, he must

proceed by petition to superior court under acts 1887, p.

64. Ibid. Insolvent debtor who was named in his father's will as legatee, pro

curing his son to be substituted as legatee, and reserving a benefit in separate contract with son ; effect of, on rights of

creditors, discussed. Hill vs. Hill, 516(1). Mortgage creditor foreclosing needs no equitable relief to defeat

senior fraudulent mortgages. Manheim vs. Claflin, 129(1). Same: He may attack by affidavit under 23979.' Ibid. Same: Or injunction and receiver at law under acts 1884–5,

p. 36. Ibid. Same: And besides, under acts 1887, p. 64, he is limited to

petition addressed to superior court. Ibid.

« PředchozíPokračovat »