For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER COUNTIES. 107 (Vt.) The law of a case cannot be determined from a brief quotation of portions of See Criminal Law, 108; Elections, 180; the opinion separate from the facts, especially Highways, 11, 77, 95, 113, 194, 197, 198, where the law upon the subject has many ex210; Municipal Corporations, 3; Stat-ceptions.-New York Life Ins. Co. v. Kimball, utes, 120; Taxation, 40, 449, 453, 463, 106 A. 676. 494; Towns, 61. I. CREATION, ALTERATION, EXIST. ENCE, AND POLITICAL FUNCTIONS. 2 (Md.) Acts 1918, c. 122, creating the suburban sanitary district within the counties of Montgomery and Prince George's but not changing any lines of the counties or interfering with their general jurisdiction, is not in contravention of Const. art. 13, § 1, relating to new counties.-Dahler v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 106 A. 10. VI. ACTIONS. 212 (Pa.) In action against a county for personal injury from its negligence in not repairing county roads under Acts June 26, 1895 (P. L. 336), and May 11, 1911 (P. L. 244), it is not necessary to show a prior demand for damages, as the damages are unliquidated; the case being within the rule that the action itself is a sufficient demand.-McCormick v. Allegheny County, 106 A. 203. COURTS. See Appeal and Error, 32, 320, 728, 730, 956, 1092, 1095; Beneficial Associations, 16; Certiorari, 36; Constitutional Law, 56, 70, 308; Contempt; Corporations, 47, 639, 665; Criminal Law, 105, 1023; Eminent Domain, 66; Exceptions, Bill of, 38, 40, 44; Executors and Administrators, V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDICTION. 2004 (Conn.) The jurisdiction of probate courts over testamentary trusts is very limited, exclusively statutory, and largely of recent origin.-De Ladson v. Crawford, 106 A. 326. A probate court may construe a testamentary trust so far as is necessary to enforce the execution of it, but it may not construe a trust to ascertain whether it is void or whether it should be terminated, for it has no express power to declare testamentary trusts void or to terminate them.-Id. 201 (Pa.) The orphans' court, in passing on exceptions to final account of executors, has jurisdiction to determine the ownership of certificates of deposit in actual possession of a decedent at her death, but claimed by an executrix as a gift inter vivos, and if court finds that gift was imperfect, because not executed, its right to take jurisdiction necessarily follows, subject to review by appellate court.-In re Cooper's Estate, 106 A. 98. 202(1) (Me.) Probate courts are wholly creatures of the Legislature of special and limited jurisdiction, and their proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, but must conform to the statute.-Cotting v. Tilton's Estate, 106 A. 113. VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING JURISDICTION, AND COMITY. (B) State Courts and United States Courts. 496; Guardian and Ward, 163; Highways, 77; Insane Persons, 70; Judges; Judgment, 760; Justices of the Peace; 494 (N.J.Ch.) Receiver of insolvent corpoLimitation of Actions, 4; Marriage, 60; New Trial, 168; Parties, Quieting Title, 26; Wills, 253, 705. 95; I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. 8 (N.J.Ch.) Law has no extraterritorial force.-Bolmer v. Edsall, 106 A. 646. 12 (N.J.Ch.) Chancery Court will not assume jurisdiction of suit by stockholder in corporation of another state, for benefit of himself and all other stockholders, to declare illegal, on account of company's insolvency, without allegations of fraud, deed and bill of sale of company's realty and personalty to another foreign corporation, etc., simply because complainant stockholder is a resident of New Jersey and property to which suit, involving "internal affairs of a corporation," relates, is situated in New Jersey.-Eckrode v. Endurance Tire & Rubber Corporation of New York, 106 A. 29. 39 (Vt.) Wherever a defect in a proceeding fatal to its jurisdiction comes to the court's notice, it must be considered, and the court will not wait for the parties to object, but acts on its own motion.-Town of Barton v. Town of Sutton, 106 A. 583. (D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, Opinions, and Records. 97(5) (N.J.Sup.) In workmen's compensation case for death of employé on towboat carrying interstate commerce, the question of whether the case is within exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts is controlled by federal decisions.-Kennedy v. Coon, 106 A. 210. 99(1) (N.H.) A question of law once decided is not reconsidered in the same case, except upon a motion for rehearing.-Topore v. Boston & M. R. R., 106 A. 498. ration, appointed by Court of Chancery under Corporation Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1638) § 63 et seq., would be instructed to apply to federal court, whose receivers were administering its business, to set up proceedings in Court of Chancery and urge that they supersede proceedings in federal court, and ask it to direct delivery of assets to Court of Chancery for administration, but not to subject himself to jurisdiction of federal court.-Michel v. William Necker, Inc., 106 A. 449. pointed under Corporation Act (2 Comp. St. Court of Chancery will direct its receiver, ap1910, p. 1638) § 63 et seq., relating to insolvency, to co-operate with federal District Court, whose receivers were in charge of administration, so that there might be no loss to creditors or stockholders.-Id. 504 (N.J.Ch.) Proceedings whereby federal District Court took over administration of a corporation in a suit by a nonresident creditor and conducted its business without liquidation and stockholder with corporation's consent, of assets, except incidentally, did not exclude proceedings in Court of Chancery under Corporation Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1638) § 63, et seq., relating to insolvency, receivership, etc.-Michel v. William Necker, Inc., 106 A. 449. After federal District Court took over administration of a corporation in suit by nonresident creditor and stockholder with corporation's consent, and conducted its business without liquidation of assets, except incidentally, the Court of Chancery would take jurisdiction, under 2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1638, § 63 et seq., relating to insolvency, receivership, etc., where statutory requisites were present.-Id. Notwithstanding fact that assets of corporation were within control of receivers of federal District Court, who were conducting its business, a receiver would be appointed where Corporation Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1638) § 63 et seq., relating to insolvency, and public policy I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF required that there should be a statutory agent known as a receiver, and creditors and stockholders were entitled to appointment of receiver to represent their interests as well as inter-16 (N.J.Sup.) It was competent for the ests of corporation.-Id. COVENANTS. See Injunction, 62; Insurance, 648. II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA TION. (C) Covenants as to Use of Real Property. 49 (N.J.) Every doubt and ambiguity in the language of a covenant restricting an owner's use of his property must be resolved in favor of his right.-Marsh v. Marsh, 106 A. 810. (D) Covenants Running with the Land. state, by Supplement to Crimes Act 1918, § 2, to make it an offense to attempt by speech to incite, etc., hostility, etc., to the government of the United States.-State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. IV. JURISDICTION. 105 (Me.) Jurisdictional questions cannot be waived.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. V. VENUE. (A) Place of Bringing Prosecution. 108 (1) (N.J.Sup.) An indictment for nuisance can only be found in the county in which the act resulting in the nuisance is committed, and not in any county where it may take effect. V. Butterworth-Judson Corporation, VII. FORMER JEOPARDY. 69(2) (Pa.) A restriction in a deed that "no-State structure of any kind shall be erected or per- 106 A. 19. mitted upon said premises or any part thereof unless the plans for the same shall have been first submitted to and approved" by the gran-173 (Me.) Jeopardy begins when a respondtor or his legal representative is a valid covenant running with the land, and inures to bene- ent is put upon trial before a court of comfit of the other lot owners in a plan of lots in petent jurisdiction, upon an indictment suffiaccordance with which the deed was made. cient in form and substance to sustain a conHarmon v. Burow, 106 A. 310. viction; the jury having been impaneled and 79(3) (Pa.) A restriction in a deed that "no sworn.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. structure of any kind shall be erected or per-184 (Me.) Where accused, when jury which mitted upon said premises or any part thereof unless the plans for the same shall have been first submitted to and approved" by the grantor or his legal representative is a valid covenant running with the land, and inures to benefit of other lot owners in a plan of lots in accordance with which the deed was made.-Harmon v. Burow, 106 A. 310. III. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. was to view the locus of murder reached the premises, fell or threw himself down and cried in the presence of the jury, "My God! take me away from here or I shall be insane again," and the court, because of accused's conduct and remark, discharged jury, held, discharge was not a bar to another trial on the same indictment; there being an urgent necessity for such discharge. State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. 200(1) (N.J.) In view of Crimes Act, § 106, providing that any person who kills another 103(2) (Pa.) The erection of a duplex dwell-in ing house does not violate a building restriction limiting a grantee to the erection of a single building, namely, "a detached dwelling house," -Harmon v. Burow, 106 A. 310. 103 (3) (Pa.) A grantor, whose deed restricted the erection of any buildings unless the plans therefor were approved by him, made no serious attempt to prevent erection of two other buildings in plan of lots, without his approval, did not waive his rights, or affect rights of other lot owners, where such acts did not materially interfere with general purpose of plan or injuriously affect value of other lots.Harmon v. Burow, 106 A. 310. attempting to commit a robbery shall be guilty of murder, where defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment for robbery, his conviction barred subsequent prosecution against him for murder of person robbed when defendant's accomplice killed him to accomplish the robbery.-State v. Mowser, 106 A. 416. IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS AND 275 (N.J.) A plea of non vult to an indictment for murder is not an absolute right of accused under Crimes Act, § 107, amended by P. L. 1917, p. 801.-State v. Martin, 106 A. 385. A plea of non vult to an indictment for murder is not efficient until accepted, and its acceptance rests in the discretion of the court. -Id. X. EVIDENCE. (A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof. 304(9) (N.J.Sup.) Where it is admitted in indictments for obstructing streets with poles and wires that the company of which defendants are directors is a corporation engaged in operation of a street railway, the court will take judicial notice that the general act which constitutes the company's charter authorizes the erection of poles along the sidewalks and the stringing of wires thereon.-State v. Riggs, 106 A. 216. 304(20) (Me.) It is a matter of common knowledge that for years Jamaica ginger, whatever its merits may be, has been used as a substitute for other intoxicants.-State v. Intoxicating Liquors and Vessels, 106 A. 711. 327 (N.J.Sup.) In prosecution of two defendants together, state had no burden to prove guilt of both defendants beyond a reasonable doubt, since one might be convicted For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER and the other acquitted.-State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. 328 (Del.Gen.Sess.) The state must prove the ingredients of the crime charged.-State v. Adams, 106 A. 287. tion "What sort of a driver is he?" would not (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, the body when discovered was admissible. and Res Gestæ. 338(3) (Md.) Evidence ás 476 (Md.) In a prosecution for the murder to whether a of a woman under circumstances suggesting nurse called as a witness had any experience with eclamptic patients was properly excluded, rape, medical testimony that the murdered person died from shock as result of her injuries where there was no offer to prove that the murdered woman had died of eclampsia, and nothing held admissible.-Snowden v. State, 106 A. 5. in the case to support such a suggestion.-Snow-479 (Md.) In a homicide case, physician who was familiar with gunshot wounds and had experimented with pistol which killed deceased was qualified to state what distance pistol was held from deceased when it was fired. Newkirk v. State, 106 A. 694. den v. State, 106 A. 5. 361(1) (Vt.) In a prosecution for statutory rape, where the mother of prosecutrix and wife of accused testified that she had spoken but once to the respondent respecting his conduct toward the prosecutrix, and was thereupon asked why she did not speak to him more, to which she replied, "Because I was afraid of him," the reply was admissible to explain the conduct of the mother in failing to do what was natural for a mother to do under such circumstances.-State v. Gile, 106 A. 829. (C) Other Offenses. and Character of Accused. 480 (Md.) In a homicide case, evidence that a physician had examined other gunshot wounds and had made experiments, etc., held proper as qualifying him to testify regarding experiments made with pistol which killed deceased.-Newkirk v. State, 106 A. 694. 494 (Md.) In a prosecution for murder, whether medical testimony as to condition of the body of the murdered woman in connection with all other facts and circumstances showed that rape had been committed upon her was for the jury.-Snowden v. State, 106 A. 5. (M) Weight and Sufficiency. 378 (Vt.) Where an accused, in introducing evidence as to his reputation, did not confine his questions to the time before the charge for which he was being prosecuted was made, the state was not required to confine its ques-560 (Del.Gen.Sess.) The state must prove tions concerning reputation to any period of time. State v. Gile, 106 A. 829. the ingredients of the crime charged, and must prove the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.-State v. Adams, 106 A. 287. 560 (Md.) If evidence satisfied jury that the murder had been committed, the burden was upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the crime.-Snowden v. State, 106 A. 5. 379 (N.H.) Where deceased was killed by a motor vehicle, the inquiry, "What sort of a driver is he?" asked relating to defendant on trial for manslaughter, was not competent as an offer to prove defendant's good character in that respect, since the personal knowledge and belief of character witnesses must be rigorously ex-561(1) (Pa.) The rule that a prisoner is cluded, and the community reputation of defendant only may be admitted in evidence.State v. Currier, 106 A. 491. (D) Materiality and Competency in General. 388 (Md.) In a homicide case, it was proper for a physician to testify regarding effect of experiments made by him with same revolver and ammunition which caused deceased's death in order to show distance between deceased and pistol when she was killed.-Newkirk v. State, 106 A. 694. (F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear. say. always entitled to the benefit of any reasonable XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINU- 576(5) (Me.) In a prosecution for murder, held, that defendant, by having case transferred to law docket, waived his right under Rev. St. c. 136, § 11, to have the case tried at the second term after the finding of the indictment.State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. The right to a speedy trial and to a trial at 407(1) (N.J.) In prosecution for obtaining the second term after the finding of an indictmoney by inducing B. to purchase stock of a defendant may be held to have waived even in ment for a felony is a personal privilege which corporation upon representations that corporation was solvent, testimony of a witness that a capital case.-Id. certain statements as to amount of stock out-576(8) (Me.) In prosecution for murder, standing, etc., were read in defendant's presence where defendant was placed on trial at the were properly admitted under the rule about statements made in the presence of a party which he fails to controvert at the time.-State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. (H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion of Parol Evidence Thereby. 438 (Md.) In a murder prosecution, photographs of marks and bruises on the body of deceased were admissible.-Snowden v. State, 106 A. 5. January term. the "next term after the finding of the indictment," but case was properly withdrawn from the jury, court did not, under Const. art. 1, § 6, and Rev. St. c. 136, §§ 11, 25, abuse its discretionary power in continuing case to the following May term, held to be the second term after the finding of the indictment; for a trial at the January term nor any rethe record disclosing no demand by defendant quest to be admitted to bail.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. 576(9) (Me.) In prosecution for murder, (I) Opinion Evidence. where defendant was placed on trial at the ~451(2) (N.H.) In a prosecution for man- January term, the "next term after the finding slaughter in the first degree (Pub. St. 1901, c. of the indictment," but case was properly with278, § 7), for the causing of death while oper- drawn from the jury, court did not, under ating a motor vehicle in violation of Laws 1911, Const. art. 1, § 6, and Rev. St. c. 136, §§ 11, 25, c. 133, § 19, evidence of defendant's general abuse its discretionary power in continuing habits of driving was properly excluded, where case to the following May term held to be the the circumstances were clearly described by wit- second term after the finding of the indictment. nesses, so that the answers sought by the ques--State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. 636(5) (Me.) At a view there is no such confrontation of witnesses as requires the presence of the accused in a criminal case.State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. A view is not a part of the "trial" in the sense in which that word is used in Rev. St. c. 136, § 23, as to defendant being present at "trial" for felony.-Id. dation of imprisonment for life, an instruction that jury may consider testimony specifically called to their attention, showing character of crime and its effect on society, in determining recommendation, is not a permissible comment on evidence.-State v. Martin, 106 A. 385. Any instruction tending to influence jury's to recommend imprisonment for life upon a unlimited discretion under P. L. 1916, p. 576, conviction of murder in the first degree is beyond the power of the court, and is erroneous. -Id. (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions. Where accused, when jury which was to view the locus of murder reached the premises, fell or threw himself down and cried in the presence of the jury, "My God! take me away from 7772 (Pa.) Where the court stated the here or I shall be insane again," held that, if he had the right to be present at the view, he waived the right.-Id. 651(2) (Me.) No testimony of any kind should be permitted to be presented to a jury while away from the presence of the court taking a view.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. contentions of commonwealth and of defendants, correctly defined the degrees of homicide, the law of self-defense, and the theory of reasonable doubt, and summarized the contentions with reference by name to persons called for prosecution, the omission of specific reference to witnesses called by the defense was not erroneous.-Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 106 A. 180. (C) Reception of Evidence. 662(1) (Me.) At a view there is no such 782(16) (Pa.) On a trial for murder, it was confrontation of witnesses as requires the presence of the accused in a criminal case.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. (D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions. not error to charge that the "burden rests upon the defendant alleging self-defense to establish it by the preponderance of the evidence"; the use of the word "fair" before the word "preponderance" not being essential (citing Words and Phrases, First Series, Preponderance; 2 Words and Phrases, Second Series, Fair Preponderance).-Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 106 A. 180. 693 (Vt.) An objection to an answer was too late and unavailing, where the answer was responsive to the question, no objection having been made to the question before answer.-793 (N.J.Sup.) In prosecution for attemptState v. Gile, 106 A. 829. 696(5) (Vt.) An objection to an answer and a request to have it stricken out was too late and unavailing, where the answer was responsive to the question, no objection having been made to the question before answer. State v. Gile, 106 A. 829. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. 720(1) (Me.) In prosecution for having committed a revolting offense, the improbability of the story upon which prosecution is based is legitimate argument of defense.-State v. Brown, 106 A. 429. ing by speech to incite, abet, promote, and 822(1) (N.J.Sup.) A charge must be read as a whole in the light of a sensible construction, and no error is committed by failing to have every sentence contain necessary qualifications, if on the whole the jury could not have been misled.-State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. 720(9) (N.H.) In a prosecution for manslaughter, committed while violating the motor vehicle law, state's argument that it was a matter of common knowledge that shock of a serious accident might have a sobering effect upon one stupefied by intoxication was at most an unwarranted inference; the question wheth-822(11) (N.J.Sup.) In prosecution for ater, without evidence, the jury could determine such effect, being one of law.-State v. Currier, 106 A. 491. (F) Province of Court and Jury in General. 753(1) (Me.) A motion for a directed verdict is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and brings the case up on the evidence. -State v. Brown, 106 A. 429. 7552 (N.J.) In prosecution for obtaining money by inducing B. to purchase stock upon representations that corporation was solvent, the court was not required to add to charge on insolvency a requested comment on the evidence. -State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. tempting by speech to incite hostility to government of United States, in violation of Supplement to Crimes Act 1918, § 2, instruction, after court had stated position of defendants. that it was for jury to say whether or not they believed defense, construed with rest of charge, held not erroneous as imposing on defendants the burden of proving their innocence.--State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. 823(1) (N.J.Sup.) An erroneous proposition of law in a charge cannot be cured by a correct statement in another portion.-State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. (H) Requests for Instructions. 824(2) (N.J.) Where defendant did not present a request to the court to define malice, he cannot complain that in a homicide case the charge failed to define malice.-State v. Moynihan, 106 A. 817. 761(10) (N.J.) Where the evidence showed that deceased, while sitting at a table in social conversation with companions, was, without warning and without provocation on his part, shot to death by some person, a charge assum-825(3) (Pa.) In the absence of a request ing as a fact that deceased was shot down in for more specific instructions presenting the cold blood, and that the person who fired the theory of the defense, a charge will not be shot was apparently trying to commit murder, held inadequate, although the evidence on one or doing an act which might cause bloodshed, side might properly have been more fully rewas not open to objection.-State v. Moynihan, ferred to.-Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 106 106 A. 817. A. 180. 768(4) (N.J.) As facts upon which conviction of murder in the first degree rest have no necessary connection with jury's recommen 825(4) (Pa.) In a trial for murder, where the court fully instructed in defendants' favor on the doctrine of reasonable doubt, failure to For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER charge as to the presumption of innocence, in the absence of a request therefor prior to verdict, was not error.-Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 106 A. 180. 829(1) (N.J.) There was no error in refusing a charge covered by the main charge.-State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. cause appearing upon the record.-State v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 106 A. 23. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and 829(22) (N.J.) Request by defendant in homicide case for charge that, if jury convict of 1008 (N.J.Sup.) The proper practice, where murder in the first degree, they might then recommend imprisonment for life was proper under P. L. 1916, p. 576, and was not complied with by instruction substantially giving request with a further charge, which might influence jury against recommendation and minimize effect of request.-State v. Martin, 106 A. 385. (J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury. 860 (Me.) The theory most consonant with reason is that the purpose of a view is not to receive evidence, but to enable the jury to more intelligently apply and comprehend the testimony presented in court, and that the information received on the view must be limited to such as is obtained from an ocular examination of the premises.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. 867 (Me.) Where accused, when jury which was to view the locus of murder reached the premises, fell or threw himself down and cried in the presence of the jury, "My God! take me away from here or I shall be insane again," held, there was such "urgent necessity" created as to warrant presiding justice in withdrawing case from the jury.-State v. Slorah, 106 A. 768. 885 (N.J.) A recommendation by jury that punishment of one convicted of murder in the first degree shall be imprisonment for life is no part of verdict of conviction, as the recommendation is only allowed after jury has agreed upon its verdict of murder in the first degree. -State v. Martin, 106 A. 385. The right given by P. L. 1916, p. 576, to a jury to recommend imprisonment for life upon a conviction of murder in the first degree is subject to no restrictions, and need not rest upon any testimony, and is within jury's un limited discretion.-Id. 945(1) (Pa.) Where the alleged newly discovered evidence, if introduced at a retrial, would not probably bring about a different verdict, the refusal of a new trial was not error. -Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 106 A. 180. the ground of objection in indictment is that no proper grand jury was impaneled, is to move to quash before the trial court which has power to hear and determine the questions of fact underlying the objection, and, if the question be erroneously determined, it can be reviewed by writ of error.-State v. Riggs, 106 A. 216. 1023(13) (Me.) In view of Rev. St. 1916, c. 136, § 28, and in view of the history of the legislation as to right of appeal in criminal cases, an appeal may be taken from denial by superior court of motion for a new trial in all felony cases, notwithstanding chapter 82, § 100, providing that motion for a new trial in criminal cases tried in either of the superior courts shall be finally determined by justice thereof.State v. Brown, 106 A. 429. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review. 1036(1) (Vt.) Where a witness volunteered an additional statement after the court had ruled that what she had previously said might stand, and the court promptly checked the witness, there was nothing on which to predicate error as far as the volunteered statement was concerned, where such statement was not objected to and no motion was made to strike it out.-State v. Gile, 106 A. 829. 1037(2) (N.H.) Where defendant, appellant in a criminal case, objected to a statement of counsel, in the absence of request for instruction to disregard it and exception to its denial, no question of law is presented.-State v. Currier, 106 A. 491. 1044 (Vt.) Where a witness volunteered an additional statement after the court had ruled that what she had previously said might stand, and the court promptly checked the witness, there was nothing on which to predicate error as far as the volunteered statement was concerned, where such statement was not objected to and no motion was made to strike it out.State v. Gile, 106 A. 829. 1050 (N.J.Sup.) Where indictment for attempting by speech to incite hostility to government of United States in violation of statute charged that defendants uttered certain English words, but proof showed words were Russian, Supreme Court cannot consider argument of variance, it not having been made in trial court, no exception raising question specifically, and there being no assignment of error.-State v. Tachin, 106 A. 145. 1055 (N.H.) Where defendant appellant in a criminal case objected to a statement of counsel, in the absence of request for instruction to disregard it and exception to its denial, no question of law is presented.-State v. Currier, 106 A. 491. and Effect Thereof. 970(1) (N.J.Sup.) The ground of objection to indictment presented upon motion to quash (C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause, is, under Criminal Procedure Act, $ 44, entitled to be considered upon motion in arrest of judg-1069(1) (Md.) Where a judgment in a murment made after acceptance of plea of non vult. der prosecution was entered on February 13, -State v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 106 A. 23. 1918, and an order for appeal was filed March Where only ground upon which motion to 2, 1918, the appeal was taken within the time quash was rested, so far as plaintiff in error is required by Court of Appeals Rule 23 (80 Atl. concerned, was that a corporation aggregate xi).-Snowden v. State, 106 A. 5. could not be guilty of manslaughter, that is the only matter which can be raised on motion in arrest of judgment in view of Criminal Procedure, § 44.-Id. 972 (N.J.Sup.) Unless bill of particulars is a part of indictment, facts set out in the bill are not available on motion in arrest of judgment, since a judgment will be arrested only for some (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec ord. 1091(5) (N.H.) Where the bill of exceptions to exclusion of evidence does not controvert the fact upon which the ruling was based, no error of law is presented.-State v. Currier, 106 A. 491. |