Deed in plaintiff's possession from his testator to defendant, not estop defendant from denying plaintiff's title. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida Railroad, 388(3).

Improvements, standing by and not objecting to; discretion of chancellor in granting temporary injunction not controlled, when. East Rome Co. vs. Cothran, 360(5).

Waiver; none will estop purchaser of fertilizers from pleading against seller want of legal inspection. Faircloth vs. De Leon,

158.

EVIDENCE. See Railroads.

Admissions: implied from silence, where direct declarations of kind that naturally call for contradiction. Bray vs. Latham, 642. Admission, silence, as an, discussed. Bray vs. Latham, 640(1).

Same: Plaintiff testified A charged defendant with setting fire to his house; A denied this; error to exclude evidence, in rebuttal, that A did so charge, though rebutting witness could not say defendant was present. Ibid. Adultery: evidence tending to show defendant used one of his witnesses to levy blackmail on third person, inadmissible on charge of. Gardner vs. State, 147(2).

Aliter, as to evidence showing opportunity, and the res gestæ of its continuance. Ibid. 149 3.

Ambiguity in submission to award explainable by parol. Riley vs. Hicks, 265(2).

Award; no ground for excluding, that referees denied one party proper hearing. Ibid. 265(4).

Character: See Witness.

Circumstantial, may establish guilt, notwithstanding strong proof of good character. Steadman vs. State, 736(1).

Circumstantial; sufficient here to show that mother killed newly born child. Echols vs. State, 696.

Construction; that will be adopted which will harmonize all of plaintiff's evidence, defendant introducing none. Atlanta & West Point Co. vs. Texas Grate Co. 602(2).

Dead, opposite party being, still if plaintiff asked witness who was a party if he signed paper, may on cross-examination explain fully. Carlton vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 531(1).

Death: heirs suing, defendant competent to rebut his declarations testified to, with third persons. Hardman vs. Nowell, 748. Declarations and conversations which are part of the res gestæ (horse swap and wrongful resumption afterward), admissible. Cook vs. Pinkerton, 89(3).

▼ 81-54

Declarations by one in possession of land in disparagement of her title, admissible. Johnson vs. Cox, 25.

Declarations of deceased made some days before killing, that she feared deceased would kill her, inadmissible. Woolfolk vs. State, 552(3).

Declarations of defendant charged with killing his father, mother, sisters and brothers, made two years before trial, to the effect that he was going to inherit that property, admissible. Ibid. 552(5).

Discretion of court in admitting additional evidence after defendant closes, recognized. Central Railroad vs. Nash, 580(1, 1a). Exchange by children of their portions in division of testator's property, agreement to, not admissible to affect rights of grandchildren remaindermen.. Crawley vs. Blackman, 775. Forthcoming bond, suit on; evidence of constable that he had advertised property, and it was not produced, admissible. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(4).

Good character, evidencé as tó, entitled to what weight. Shropshire vs. State, 591. (And see Character under Witness.)

Hearsay improperly admitted, not work new trial,, when verdict fully sustained by other evidence.. Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(3)..

Hearsay sayings of bystander, when hat drawn out of well, ten days after killing, that it belonged to son of deceased, inadmissible. Woolfolk vs. State, 551(1).

Hearsay that C. sent clerk to W. for a particular sample, and he returned with it, admitted. Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(2).

Hearsay: witness's voluntary statement on cross-examination, that he gave opinion, when informed that a whole family was killed except one, "then that one is T. W.," inadmissible. Woolfolk vs. State, 552(2). J

Illegal evidence not admissible to rebut same sort on other side admitted without objection. Ibid. 552(3a). >

Illegal, some admitted, second grant of new trial approved. Towner vs. Thompson, 171.

Jury in another case gave credit to plaintiff's testimony, witness cannot testify that. Rigden vs. Jordan, 669(6).

Opinion of witness as to who was the guilty person, inadmissible. Woolfolk vs. State, 552(2).

Parol admissible to explain ambiguity in contract of sale of oats. Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(1).·

Parol admissible to show that time stated in contract for delivery of cotton-seed oil-mill machinery was of essence... Yan Winkle vs. Wilkins, 94(4).

Parol inadmissible to vary written.

(1, la).

Patterson vs. Ramspeck, 808

Parol not admissible to contradict sheriff's entry as to what prop

erty was sold. Parler vs. Johnson, 254(2).

Previous difficulty between accused and deceased admissible, though friendly after. Starke vs. State, 593(2).

Proceedings of superior court can only be shown by extract from minutes duly certified. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(3).

Same: Original order dismissing illegality, not admissible.
Ibid.

Rebuttal; general character of main witness for State attacked, other evidence as to principal facts admitted. Bray vs Latham, 643,

Rebuttal: plaintiff makes out prima facie case; vigorously assailed by defendant; plaintiff may fortify his title. Ibid. Rebuttal: plaintiff testified to sale; defendant testified sale was conditional; error to exclude plaintiff to deny this. Ibid. Rebuttal presence of State's witness, denied by defendant's witness, proper to admit others to prove he was there. Ibid. Rebutting testimony defined. Ibid. 642.

Relevant, part tendered was, and part not, not error to reject the whole. Skellie vs. Central Railroad, 56(1).

Res gesta: sayings of bystander, when hat drawn out of well, ten days after killing, that it belonged to son of deceased, not admissible as. Woolfolk vs. State, 551(1).

Sayings about one's rights behind his back, person is not to be affected by. Moore vs. Brown, 11(5).

Secondary, admissible without notice to produce, when. Crawford vs. Hodge, 728.

Secondary, to admit, existence and proper execution must first be shown. Calhoun vs. Calhoun, 91.

Secret of preparation (axle-grease), plaintiff not compelled to disclose in suit for agreed royalty. Lamar vs. Russell, 299. Silence as an admission, error to reject evidence tending to establish. Bray vs. Latham, 640(1).

Threat made by third person against deceased properly excluded, when. Woolfolk vs. State, 553(8).

Verdict, allowing plaintiff to take, improper, where no evidence left before jury. Sprinz vs. Frank, 162(1).

EXECUTIONS.

Injunction to restrain; refusal of, not controlled, where charges of fraud denied. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.

Nulla bona, entry of, made after dormancy, and dated back so as to
revive, is not only void but villainous. Sprinz vs. Frank,
162(4).

Same: Open to question by parol evidence. Ibid. 162(2).
Nulla bona, traverse of entry of, officer need not be made a party.
Ibid. 162.

Receipt for costs, to sheriff, entered by magistrate on fi. fa, pre-
vents dormancy. Gholston vs. O'Kelley, 19.

Transferee can only enforce it for amount due on it, for which it
was transferred to him. Satterfield vs. Boyd, 316...

Same: Defendant cannot, by agreement, increase amount,
so as to affect third persons. Ibid.

EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. See Administrators and Executors.

FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.

Machinery defective and delayed, right to recoup damages not
waived by receiving and using. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins,
94(7).

Same: Nor will sale of oil-mill defeat right to recoup
against contract price of such machinery. Ibid.

Machinery defective in kind, and delivery delayed beyond time
stipulated, are both matters for reducing contract price.
Ibid. 93(1).

FEE SIMPLE. See Estates.

FELLOW-SERVANTS. See Master and Servant.

FENCE. See Stock-Law.

FERTILIZERS.

Patterson

Analysis, information from, made by witness himself, admissible,
but not from others, or from effect on crops.
vs. Ramspeck, 808,3a).

Analysis on each sack guaranteed, sale by, not error to reject
representations of agent as to grade and ingredients. Ibid.
808(1).

Same: If representations made from circular, circular
should be produced. Ibid. 808(1a).

Hearsay as to analyses by State chemist, and as to dissatisfac-
tion of others in use of it, inadmissible. Ibid. 808.

Verdict here for plaintiff sustained by the evidence. Maddox vs.

Cole, 325(1).

Waiver, none will estop buyer from pleading against seller want of legal inspection. Faircloth vs. De Leon, 158.

FINES AND FORFEITURES.

County not entitled to share in distribution of.

Harris, 719.

Gordon County vs.

Insolvent costs, how distributed in payment of. Ibid.

FORGERY. See Deeds.

Bond for title signed by pretended agent, without authority, is a forgery, and is good color of title. Millen vs. Stines, 655.

Same: Simmons vs. Lane, 25 Ga. 178, distinguished. Ibid. Indorsement of check. See Banks, and thereunder, Forged indorsement.

FORMER ACQUITTAL. See Criminal Law.

FORMER CONVICTION. See Criminal Law.

FORMER RECOVERY. See Pleadings.

FORTHCOMING BONDS. See Attorney's Fees; Illegality.

FRAUD. See Possessory Warrant; Statute of Limitations.

Administrator, between, and first vendee, not affect title of subsequent one without notice. King vs. Cabaniss, 662(3). Bill of lading, indorsee of, not affected by fraud of consignor in dealings with consignee. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 221(2).

Good faith, court should leave to jury, but failure not cause reversal where verdict demanded. Ware vs. Barlow, 2(2a). Husband, secret contract by, with wife, bona fides must be clearly established. Skellie vs. James, 419(1).

Injunction, refusal of; discretion of chancellor not controlled, where charges of, denied. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.

In pari delicto: defendant holding under grantee of an alleged fraudulent conveyance from plaintiff, to defeat trover suit must show fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs. Thornton, 154(1).

Same: This defence is recognized for the sake of the public, not of the defendant. Ibid.