Intent to steal inferable, where no other motive appears. Steadman 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; 224331–3 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 criminis. 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 24419. Burley vs. State, 741(1). Larcency from railroad car: misdemeanor, conviction for, under 24419, 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 people. 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 vs. State, 629.

Liquor, selling to minor; no defence that he had no parent or guardian. Ibid. 628.

Malice, express: charge that certain things" would be evidence of express malice," not reversible error, when. Starke vs.

State, 593(3).

Murder: adultery with wife, killing as a punishment for past, is murder. Cloud vs. 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 admissible, 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 vs. 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, hearsay 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. 24334 discussed. Cloud vs. State, 449.

Perjury: corroboration of prosecutrix held sufficient, here. Flewister vs. State, 768(1).

Preparation, time for, no error to refuse to grant further time, when. Parker vs. State, 332(2).

Presumption that indictment was regularly returned, not exist if minutes show no return at all. Bowen vs. State, 483. Previous difficulty between accused and deceased admissible, though friendly after. Starke vs. 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 gesta sayings which are part of, admissible. Shropshire vs. State, 589(2).

Searching prisoner, discoveries made by, though compelled, admissible. 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 24325. Fry vs. State, 645(1).

Special plea denying that indictment was regularly returned, error to strike, here. Bowen vs. State, 483.

Threat made by third person against persons killed, two weeks before killing, properly excluded, when. Woolfolk vs. State, 553(8).

Trespass: cropper removing and selling crop, not indictable under 24440, though title reserved in landlord. Padgett vs. State, 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 vs. State, 334.

Voluntary manslaughter: husband killing to prevent sexual intercourse with wife, 24334 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).

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. See Criminal Law.

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. Atlanta & 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 reducing contract price. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 93(1).

Mitigation, advice of counsel in, discussed.

475(3).

Shores vs. Brooks

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 vs. Western Union, 285.

Punitive, recoverable where landlord breaks house and seizes tenant's cotton, though he fairly applies proceeds to lien debt. Shores 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 cottonseed oil-mill 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 constitution 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. Latham, 644.

Telegraph message; company not liable for possible profits of person to whom sent. Clay vs. Western Union, 285.

Time of essence; parol admissible to show that time stated in contract for delivery of oil-mill machinery, was so.

kle vs. Wilkins, 94(4).

Van Win

Same: Also to show laying in supply of cotton-seed was in contemplation of both parties. Ibid.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

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, procuring 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.