Justification, plea of, to libel, no waiver of defence that the words
were privileged. Wilson vs. Sullivan, 238(3).

Open account, service personal, no plea; court may direct verdict
denying argument. Stephens vs. Gate City Company, 151(1).
Principal though undisclosed may sue, but pleading must be shaped
to meet proof of agency, and agency must be shown. Atlanta
& West Point Co. vs. Texas Grate Co. 602(2).

Surety, plea by, that principal signed under duress of illegal impris
onment, and want of knowledge by surety, error to strike.
Patterson vs. Gibson, 802.

Usury, plea of, not required in order for defendant to attack plain-
iff's title. Jaques vs. Stewart, 81(1).

Variance contract to deliver freight to B. for B. not support allega-
tion to deliver to plaintiff, a corporation, or to B. for it.
Atlanta & West Point Co. vs. Texas Grate Co. 602(1).

POSSESSION. See Crops; Prescription.

Adverse, question of, is one of intent, and turns on bona fides of ten-
ant. Ware vs. Barlow, 7.

Deed, held under, without more, sufficient to make out prima facie
case. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida Railroad, 392.
Declarations of party in, in disparagement of her title, admissible
Johnson vs Cox, 25.

Ejectment, plaintiff may recover in, as against mere trespasser, on
prior possession alone. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida, 392.
Tacking in defence of possessory warrant, authorized under 224038,
4035. Gaillard vs. Hudson, 738.

POSSESSORY WARRANT.

Consent, disappeared without, must be alleged, where warrant
under second clause of 24032. Odom vs. Trantham, 713(2).
Fraudulent misrepresentations, possession of horse obtained by, re-
coverable by. Ibid. 714.

Lent without fraud, warrant not lie to recover property. Ibid.
713(1).

Possession of four years under 24038, may be obtained by tacking
under 24035. Gaillard vs. Hudson, 738.

PRACTICE IN SUPERIOR COURT.

Amendment is in time, though offered after oral judgment an-
nounced. Lytle vs. De Vaughn, 226(2).

Continued by consent, case cannot be without permission of court.
Camp vs. Morgan, 740.

Evidence, allowing additional, is always in discretion of court.
Central Railroad vs. Nash, 581(1a).

General character, refusing to allow counsel to explain, not error,
not appearing what explanation proposed. Flemister vs.
State, 768(3).

Illegal testimony admitted on one side without objection, not jus-
tify illegal rebutting testimony. Woolfolk vs. State, 552(2a),
558.

Judge absenting himself from bench, pending argument, not work
new trial, when. O'Shields vs. State, 301.

Jury must take law from court in criminal cases.

141.

Hunt vs. State,

Jury; sending out in either civil or criminal case, pending hearing
of preliminary testimony, is in discretion of court. Woolfolk
vs. State, 553(7), 564.

Laws relating to, applicable in city court of Atlanta. Harris vs. Lowe,

676.

Questions, shaping for jury, no error here; range was wide enough.
McCook vs. Harp, 229(1).

Same: Other questions, if thought necessary, should have
been suggested. Ibid.

Reopening case, after testimony closed, is in discretion of court
Maddox vs. Cole, 325.

Same: Discretion not abused where witness excluded could.
have been subpoenaed. Ibid.

Trial, conduct of; applause and outcry "hang him" in court-room,
during trial, unrebuked, effect of, considered. Woolfolk vs.
State, 552(4).

Verdict, none should be allowed, where no evidence before jury.
Sprinz vs. Frank, 162(1).

Same: Applied to illegality where evidence offered was ex-
Icluded. Ibid.

PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT.

Absence of counsel of plaintiff in error; as to duty of, to notify court
of conditions which will prevent attendance. Evans rs.
Kilby, 280.

Burden is on plaintiff in error to show error.

107(4).

Wikle vs. Woolley,

Same: Decision below not clearly right, sustained if not
clearly wrong. Ibid.

Conversation, error in rejecting, not determined, where import of
it not in record. Moore vs. Brown, 11(5a).

Cross-bill not passed on when judgment affirmed. Hill vs. Silvey,

501(3).

Dismiss, motion to, not passed on, where judgment affirmed. Ibid.
Evidence, error in rejecting, not considered where not appear what
it was. Askew vs. Carr, 685(2).

Evidence, ground of objection to admissibility of, not disclosed, not
considered. Tarver vs. Torrance, 261(2).

Evidence, rejection of some competent not necessarily cause re-
versal. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 94(9).

Exceptions to rulings of judge made in writing on exceptions filed
to auditor's report, will be considered, though final judg-
ment not excepted to. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida
Railroad, 387(1).

Final judgment; threat of superior court to remove executor unless
he give bond, not reviewable until done. Powell vs. Ham-
mond, 567(3).

Hardship of decision, when constrained by the law, appeals urging,
not listened to. Deyton vs. Bell, 371(3).

Harmless error not work reversal. Clower vs. Fleming, 247(4).
Interrogatory, answer to cross, not full enough, error in overruling,
objection to, not considered, when. Roberts vs. Crowley,
429(2).

Irrelevant evidence admitted; if immaterial or nearly so, not cause
reversal. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(6).

Mistakes in record, suggestions of, too late, if not made before call
of case. Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3b).

Newly discovered evidence, credibility of witnesses establishing,
must appear. Dominick vs. State, 715.

Parties; contest between creditors only on money rule, sheriff need
not be made a party defendant in error. Moore vs. Brown,
10(2).

Presumption is in favor of correctness of judgment below. Wikle
vs. Woolley, 119(3).

Reinstate dismissed case, court will, where sole counsel for plaintiff
in error absent from sudden access of illness. Moore vs.
Brown, 10(1).

Same: If other circuit reached before reinstatement, will
be continued or heard on briefs. Ibid.

Reinstatement of dismissed case; wife of counsel of plaintiff in
error about to be confined, insufficient, when. Evans vs.
Kilby, 278.

Return of indictment into court, record not disclosing what min-
utes showed as to, clerk required to complete, under
24272(g). Bowen vs Siate, 484.

Rule out testimony; must appear motion was made before close of case to jury. Wright vs. State, 745.

Verdict finding answers to questions submitted under 24206, no writ of error lies to, until judgment entered. McGowan vs. Lufburrow, 358.

Same: Leave granted to enter exceptions pendente lite on return of case. Ibid.

PRESCRIPTION.

Adverse possession, question of, is one of intent, and turns on bona fides of tenant. Ware vs. Barlow, 7.

Charge as to, though erroneous here, not work reversal. Clower vs. Fleming, 247(4).

Constructive notice not make title fraudulent. Ware vs. Barlow, 6. Ejectment; title ripened by prescription in defendant before amendment filed laying demise in remaindermen, no recovery. Jones vs. Johnson, 294(3).

Forged bond for title; bond by pretended agent without authority is good color of title. Millen vs. Stines, 655.

Same: Simmons vs. Lane, 25 Ga. 178, distinguished. Ibid. Grant, plaintiff having good prescriptive title may recover in ejectment without showing. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida, 392. Innocent purchaser from agent of two executors, protected against

mistake of law on his part, when. Ware vs. Barlow, 1(1a). Possession must not originate in fraud, as used in code, means actual not legal fraud. Ibid. 1(1).

Same: Hunt vs. Dunn, 74 Ga. 120, doubted and distinguished. Ibid.

Private way, person claiming, must bring himself strictly within the law; what must appear, stated. Collier vs Farr, 749. Tenant for life, one holding under, acquires no title against remaindermen suing within seven years. Bagley vs. Kennedy, 721(1).

Trustee barred by, beneficiaries are also; rule defined and explained. East Rome Co. vs. Cothran, 359(2).

PRESUMPTIONS. See Illegality; Practice in Supreme Court.

Forged, that deed is, arise from certificate of executive department that was no such attesting officer in that county. Parker vs. Waycross & Fiorida Railroad, 393.

Indictment no presumption that it was returned regularly, if minutes show none. Bowen vs. State, 483.

Jurisdiction: term of return of bill not appearing, presumption is
chancellor had proof before him, as to, before decreeing.

Mayer vs. Hover, 315(3).

Mental competency of witness examined by interrogatories, pre-
sumed. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(4).

Virility, normal powers of, presumed in mature male person.
Gardner vs. State, 144(4).

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See Contracts.

Authority of P. to act as agent for company, cannot be proved by
declarations of a director. Fla. Midland vs. Varnedoe, 176(3).
Same: Nor by newspaper report of a company meeting.
Ibid. 176(4).

Holding one out as agent, what facts amount to, by a railroad com-
pany. Ibid. 176(8).

Sayings of one man cannot make another, or a corporation, his prin-
cipal; error to refuse charge, when. Ibid.

Undisclosed principal may sue on contract of affreightment, but
agency must be alleged and proved. Atlanta & West Point
Co. vs. Texas Grate Co. 602(2).

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

Administrator reviving barred debt and sureties liable thereon,
discussed. Crabtree vs. Graham, 290.

Bond of sheriff guilty of official misconduct, may be sued on, before
recovery against him. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 716.

Discharged, surety is, where creditor agreed to take mortgage with
waiver of homestead, and took usurious and void one.
Small vs. Hicks, 691(1).

Duress of illegal imprisonment, principal signing under, surety not
bound. Patterson vs. Gibson, 802(1).

Same: Knowledge of imprisonment but not of illegality,
not alter case. Ibid.

Notice to sue; presumption feeble that creditor preserved it. Craw-
food vs. Hodge, 728.

Same: Notice to produce dispensed with, if facts show it
would be nugatory. Ibid.

Plea by surety that principal signed under duress of illegal impris-
ment and want of knowledge by surety, error to strike.
Patterson vs. Gibson, 802.

Principal not liable for any cause, surety not liable. Ibid. 804.

v 81-56