bery under duress is not a defense in a prosecution for the murder of the person robbed.State v. Moretti, 120 P. 102.

II. CAPACITY TO COMMIT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIME.

§ 48 (Mont.) Insanity relied on as a defense in a criminal case defined.-State v. Leakey, 120 P. 234.

V. VENUE.

(B) Change of Venue.

§ 134 (N.M.) Evidence held not to show an abuse of discretion in refusal to grant change of venue.-Territory v. Cheaney, 120 P. 335.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMINATION, COMMITMENT, AND SUMMARY TRIAL.

§ 260 (Cal.App.) On appeal from a justice or police court on a statement of the case, it is not essential that accused or his counsel have notice, after the hearing on the appeal, when the judgment will be rendered.-La Porte v. Williams, 120 P. 55.

Under Pen. Code, § 1264, the superior court on appeal from a police court on a statement of facts held authorized to forthwith transmit to the police court its finding and judgment affirming the conviction.-Id.

IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCONTINUANCE.

§ 261 (Mont.) An indictment may, after the swearing of the jury, without subsequent arraignment of defendant, be amended for error in spelling, which could not have misled.-State v. Foley, 120 P. 225.

$ 301 (Okl.Cr.App.) Motion in misdemeanor case to substitute plea of not guilty for plea of guilty is in the discretion of the court.-Jenkins v. State, 120 P. 298; McDaniel v. Same, Id. 299.

In a felony case, where defendant pleads guilty, he should be accorded the right to trial by jury given by Bill of Rights, §§ 19, 20, by permitting him before judgment to substitute a plea of not guilty for a plea of guilty.-Id.

(A) Judicial

X. EVIDENCE.

Notice, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof.

$ 404 (Cal.) On a trial of accused for supplying medicine to a pregnant woman with intent to procure her miscarriage, the exhibition by a woman of her child about 5 months old at the time of the trial held not improper. -People v. Richardson, 120 P. 20.

On a trial of accused for supplying medicine to a pregnant woman with intent to procure a miscarriage, the exhibition by her of the child held admissible as corroborative of certain testimony.-Id.

(F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear

say.

$ 413 (Mont.) Declarations of accused relying on the defense of insanity held admissible to show the condition of his mind.-State v. Leakey, 120 P. 234.

(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators and Codefendants.

§ 422 (Wash.) Threats and statements by one codefendant held not admissible against the other codefendant upon a separate trial.-State v. Beebe, 120 P. 122.

§ 424 (Wash.) Admissions by one codefendant, made subsequent to the crime, held not admissible against the other codefendant upon a separate trial.-State v. Beebe, 120 P. 122.

(I) Opinion Evidence.

§ 452 (Mont.) A witness held not an intimate acquaintance of accused within Rev. Codes, § 7887, and he is not competent to testify to the mental condition of accused.-State v. Leakey, 120 P. 234.

§ 456 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 7887, the opinion of a qualified witness that accused was insane held admissible notwithstanding his statements on cross-examination.-State v. Leakey, 120 P. 234.

A witness not competent under the statute to express his opinion on the sanity or insanity of accused must confine his testimony to a statement of the observations he has made.Id.

$311 (N.M.) The presumption of sanity is sufficient evidence thereof, unless there is evidence to the contrary, creating a reasonable doubt.-Territory v. McNabb, 120 P. 907.

$312 (Cal.App.) A person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own act. -People v. Moxley, 120 P. 43.

$ 324 (N.M.) "Inference" and "presumption" distinguished.-Territory v. Lucero, 120 P. 304. § 331 (N.M.) The burden of proving sanity, held to be on the prosecution.-Territory v. McNabb, 120 P. 907.

(B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, and Res Gestæ.

$338 (Wash.) In view of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2161, held, that evidence bearing only upon the guilt of one codefendant was irrelevant as to the guilt of another codefendant.-State v. Beebe, 120 P. 122.

§ 351 (N.M.) The flight of one accused or suspected of crime does not raise the presumption of guilt, and at most may be considered with other evidence as a circumstance against accused. Territory v. Lucero, 120 P. 304.

Opinion of a nonexpert witness who has had wide opportunity for observation as to the insanity of accused held admissible.-Id.

§ 472 (Mont.) Under Rev. Codes, § 7887, as to competency of opinions of skilled persons, held, testimony as to habits, conduct, and action of cattle are admissible, on prosecution for larceny of cattle, as to the probability of their having strayed a certain distance.-State v. Foley, 120 P. 225.

Admission of evidence of habits of cows with

sucking calves held proper on a prosecution for

theft of cattle.-Id.

(L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination or at Former Trial.

$543 (Cal.App.) Evidence held to show sufficient diligence to secure the attendance of a witness to authorize the admission of his deposition taken on preliminary examination.People v. Kelly, 120 P. 46.

Whether a sufficient foundation was laid for the admission of the deposition of a witness, taken at a preliminary examination, was within the discretion of the trial court.-Id.

§ 547 (Cal.App.) An official reporter taking the deposition of a witness at a preliminary hearing need not be sworn.-People v. Kelly, 120 P. 46.

Deposition of a witness at a preliminary examination, taken by the official reporter, held prima facie admissible under Pen. Code, § 686, without proof that the interpreter was sworn. -Id.

(M) Weight and Sufficiency.

$561 (Mont.) A conviction can only be sustained when the evidence points to accused, as the guilty person beyond a reasonable doubt. -State v. Lawson, 120 P. 808.

XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINUANCE.

(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General.

$633 (Okl.Cr.App.) Court must see that fair trials are had and rights of accused are preserved.-Green v. State, 120 P. 667.

$655 (Or.) Accused in a seduction case held not injured by the court's remark to his counsel upon the latter taking an exception: "Yes; ten of them."-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

$655 (Utah) On trial for murder, held, that remarks and conduct of the trial judge were not prejudicial.-State v. Vacos, 120 P. 497.

$ 656 (N.M.) Remark by the judge in ruling on evidence held not erroneous, as expressing a view that decedent was rightfully at the place of homicide.-Territory v. Trapp, 120 P. 702.

$ 656 (Or.) Remark of court in denying a motion by accused for a directed verdict held not improper.-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

done.-Pugh v. State, 120 P. 296.

$590 (Wyo.) A motion for a continuance on the ground of want of time to enable accused's counsel to prepare for trial held addressed to the discretion of the court.-Hollywood v. State, 120 P. 471.

Refusal of a continuance to enable one of the counsel of accused to prepare for the trial held not an abuse of discretion.-Id.

$598 (N.M.) Refusal of continuance in a criminal case for absence of a witness held not an abuse of discretion.-Territory v. Walker, 120 P. 336.

$ 598 (Okl.Cr.App.) Refusal of continuance for absence of witness not served with process held properly overruled.-Pugh v. State, 120 P. 296.

$599 (Idaho) On allowing indorsement of name of witness for state on information during trial, defendant held entitled to time to secure witnesses in rebuttal.-State v. Silva, 120 P. 835.

§ 603 (Cal.App.) A refusal to grant a continuance on the ground of absence of witnesses held justified under the affidavit in support of a motion.-People v. Sliger, 120 P. 40.

XII. TRIAL.

(A) Preliminary Proceedings.

$ 622 (Wash.) An accused informed against jointly with another held entitled to a separate trial as a matter of law, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2161, though he did not apply before the case was set for trial.-State v. Moran, 120 P. 86.

§ 628 (Idaho) Rev. Codes, § 7656, held not to require indorsement on information of names of witnesses called to rebut testimony given by defendant.-State v. Silva, 120 P. 835.

Under Rev. Codes, § 7656, the court may require prosecuting attorney to show that he did not know of witnesses, whose names are not indorsed on the information, prior to the trial.

-Id.

Under Rev. Codes, § 7656, witnesses whose names are not indorsed on information, who are called in rebuttal, should not be permitted to give testimony that is not clearly in rebuttal.-Id.

Bill of Rights, § 20, does not apply to proof of facts in their nature essentially documentary.-Id.

$665 (Wyo.) Where accused was not responsible for violation by a witness of the rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom during the trial, the exclusion of the testimony of the witness could not be justified on the ground of such violation.-Hollywood v. State, 120 P.

471.

$ 681 (N.M.) Power of the court over the introduction of evidence stated.-Territory v. McNabb, 120 P. 907.

§ 683 (Idaho) "Rebutting evidence" defined.State v. Silva, 120 P. 835.

§ 688 (Or.) Though the state in a seduction case, had not showed when it rested, that prosecutrix was unmarried at the time of the seduction, the court could, after denying accused's motion that ground for a verdict, permit the state to supply the evidence of nonmarriage.-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

(D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions.

$696 (Mont.) A witness for the state having without objection answered a question, defendant may not then on motion have the answer struck out.-State v. Van, 120 P. 479.

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. § 706 (Or.) The court properly censured the prosecuting attorney in a seduction case for holding up prosecutrix's child in the courtroom and asking her whether it was hers.-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

$7222 (Cal.App.) A question asked prosecutrix in a rape trial on her redirect examination held reversible error.-People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

$728 (Cal.App.) Objection for misconduct of the district attorney in asking a question held sufficiently preserved.-People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

§ 730 (Or.) In view of the court's action in a seduction case, in rebuking plaintiff's attorney for holding prosecutrix's child up before the jury, held that it would be presumed that no prejudice resulted therefrom.-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

(F) Province of Court and Jury in General.

§ 741 (Okl.Cr.App.) Sufficiency of evidence corroborating accomplice held for the jury.McGill v. State, 120 P. 297.

(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions.

§ 778 (Cal.) On a trial for supplying to a pregnant woman medicine with intent to procure her miscarriage, an instruction in the language of Code Civ. Proc. § 1963, subd. 28, held not erroneous in view of the evidence. People v. Richardson, 120 P. 20.

$ 782 (Okl.Cr.App.) It is error to charge that, where the state makes out a prima facie case, defendant must establish his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.-Cowherd v. State, 120 P. 1021.

$785 (Okl.Cr.App.) Instruction as to the effect of willfully false testimony of a witness held erroneous.-Sims v. State, 120 P. 1032.

$789 (Wyo.) An instruction on reasonable doubt held proper, where the crime was established by the testimony of eyewitnesses.-Hollywood v. State, 120 P. 471.

(K) Verdict.

$ 877 (N.M.) In a trial of accused and two others for homicide held not error to submit forms of verdict, denying him the right of acquittal separately from the others.-Territory v. Trapp, 120 P. 702.

XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST.

§ 923 (Wash.) The court held justified in refusing on conflicting affidavits a new trial for prejudice of a juror.-State v. Moretti, 120 P. 102.

§ 941 (Idaho) Newly discovered evidence held insufficient to authorize grant of new trial in prosecution for unlawful sale of liquor.-State v. Silva, 120 P. 835.

§ 957 (Okl.Cr.App.) A verdict cannot be impeached by affidavit of a juror that he did not agree to it.-Vanderburg v. State, 120 P. 301.

§ 969 (Mont.) A motion in arrest of judgment must be founded on some defect in the information.-State v. Van, 120 P. 479.

XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CERTIORARI.

§ 815 (Cal.App.) An instruction ignoring threats against and intoxication of prosecutrix in a rape trial as an element of the offense within Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 4, was properly refused.-People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

§ 822 (Mont.) Complaint may not be made that instructions defining larceny did not mention felonious intent, where another instruction required this to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.-State v. Van, 120 P. 479.

§ 822 (Utah) Charge in a trial for murder bearing upon the burden of proof as to selfdefense as prescribed by Comp. Laws 1907, § 4856, held, when considered as a whole, not prejudicial.-State v. Vacos, 120 P. 497.

§ 823 (Cal.) On a trial for supplying medicine to a pregnant woman with intent to procure her abortion, an instruction held not misleading in view of other instructions given.People v. Richardson, 120 P. 20.

(H) Requests for Instructions.

§ 824 (N.M.) Omission to request a proper instruction held to preclude accused from complaining of an omission in an instruction.-Territory v. Trapp, 120 P. 702.

§ 825 (N.M.) Accused held not entitled to complain of an instruction on the law of selfdefense, in the absence of a request for a better instruction.-Territory v. Trapp, 120 P. 702.

§ 829 (Cal.App.) Instructions substantially covered by those given are properly refused. People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

$829 (Cal.App.) A requested charge as to the jury's duty in determining whether they shall convict held sufficiently covered by the charge given.-People v. Davenport, 120 P. 451. § 829 (Cal.App.) The refusal to give a requested charge on self-defense covered by that given was not error.-People v. Lewis, 120 P. 1067.

§ 829 (Mont.) Refusal of instructions covered by those given is proper.-State v. Foley, 120 P. 225.

§ 829 (Mont.) It is not error to refuse requested instructions fully and fairly covered by the charge given.-State v. Leakey, 120 P. 234. § 829 (Mont.) Requested instructions, the substance of which is covered by instructions given, are properly refused.-State v. Van, 120

P. 479.

$829 (Wyo.) In a criminal case, the refusal to give a charge on a reasonable doubt held not erroneous in view of the charge given.Hollywood v. State, 120 P. 471.

Right of Review.

$1005 (Okl.Cr.App.) While an appeal is a constitutional right, the manner of taking it is subject to legislative regulation, which must be complied with.-Lyons v. State, 120 P. 665.

$1018 (Okl.Cr.App.) Act June 4, 1908 (Laws 1907-08, c. 27, art. 1, § 3; Comp. Laws 1909, § 1979) only confers on the county court concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in appeals from judgments of police courts.-Meloy v. City of Woodward, 120 P. 1119.

§ 1023 (Cal.App.) Under Pen. Code, § 1237, held, that neither a verdict nor an order overruling a motion in arrest of judgment is appealable.-People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

(B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review.

§ 1056 (Okl.Cr.App.) A conviction will not be reversed for error in an instruction, unless excepted to when given.-Sims v. State, 120 P. 1032.

§ 1059 (Okl.Cr.App.) General exceptions to instructions will not be considered.-Summers v. State, 120 P. 1031.

$1059 (Or.) An exception taken held to be to the denial of accused's motion for a directed verdict, and not to a remark of the court, so that its alleged impropriety cannot be reviewed.-State v. Meister, 120 P. 406.

(C) Proceedings for Transfer and Effect Thereof.

of Cause,

§ 1069 (Okl.Cr.App.) Failure to file appeal within the time allowed by law or extended by order of the court held fatal to the appeal.Green v. State, 120 P. 1037.

§ 1081 (Cal.App.) Statement by accused's counsel held to constitute sufficient notice of appeal.-People v. Crosby, 120 P. 441.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record.

$1091 (Wash.) Affidavits for a new trial cannot be considered, where they were not made a part of the certified bill of exceptions or statement of facts.-State v. Moran, 120 P. 86.

§ 1099 (Okl.Cr.App.) Where counsel for appellant are unable to obtain case-made within the statutory time, they should apply to the Court of Appeals for extension of time.-Lyons v. State, 120 P. 665.

Where the time for preparing a case-made fixed by the trial court has expired, no court

(H) Determination and

Cause,

$ 1186 (Cal.App.) Under proposed amendment No. 26 to the Constitution (St. 1911, p. 1798), the court's failure to define reasonable doubt in a prosecution for robbery held not ground for reversal.-People v. Kelly, 120 P. 46.

$1186 (Okl.Cr.App.) Attorneys should not be allowed to secure reversal of a conviction on any ground which they could have avoided by exercise of reasonable diligence.-Lyons V. State, 120 P. 665.

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME.

§ 1205 (Okl.Cr.App.) Criminals are punished, first, to reform the offenders, and, second, to set an example to deter others.-Lyons v. State, 120 P. 665.

$ 1206 (Okl.Cr.App.) Act Cong. Jan. 15, 1897, which in certain cases abolishes capital punishment, has no application to proceedings in the state court, but is limited entirely to cases in the United States courts.-Holmes v. State, 120 P. 300.

CROPS.

See Animals, § 100; Chattel Mortgages, §§ 17, 23, 138, 177; Sales, §§ 72, 168, 214, 272.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

See Witnesses, §§ 269, 270.

CROSSINGS.

See Railroads, §§ 327-350.

DAMAGES.

See Appeal and Error, §§ 1004, 1033, 1053, 1068, 1140; Assault and Battery, §§ 32, 40; Carriers, §§ 229, 376, 382; Death, $99; Eminent Domain, §§ 91-153, 203, 281, 303; Evidence, §§ 119, 4742; Fraud, § 59; Injunction, § 11; Libel and Slander, § 89; Municipal Corporations, § 392; Partnership, §§ 327, 330; Replevin, § 83; Trespass, $$ 47, 69; Trial, § 252.

§ 62 (Okl.) Party injured by a trespass may recover damages sustained where his right to property is willfully invaded, and is not bound to do any act to relieve the trespassers.-Shannon v. McNabb, 120 P. 268.

V. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

§ 92 (Cal.) Exemplary damages cannot be awarded against a principal for his agent's fraud, unless he authorized or knew of it or ratified it with knowledge.-Lightner Mining Co. v. Lane, 120 P. 771.

VI. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
(B) Injuries to Property.

$132 (Wash.) Verdict for $23,895, reduced to $14,000, for personal injuries, held not excessive.-Lynch v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 120 P. 882.

$132 (Wash.) Five thousand dollars held not excessive for an injury causing traumatic neurasthenia.-Taylor v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co., 120 P. 889.

VIII. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, AND

ASSESSMENT.

(B) Evidence.

§ 163 (Colo.App.) The burden of proof is on defendant to show that the plaintiff could, by a reasonable effort, have materially reduced the loss sustained.-Jones v. Bondurant, 120 P. 1047.

§ 174 (Okl.) In an action against a tenant to recover the value of fixtures removed, evidence of original cost held admissible.-Kilgore v. Lyle, 120 P. 626.

(C) Proceedings for Assessment.

§ 203 (Okl.) Defendant in default may crossexamine witnesses and introduce evidence in reduction of damages.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Zumwalt, 120 P. 640.

§ 216 (Okl.) Where evidence failed to show reasonable value of medical attendance, instruction to take into consideration expense incurred for such attendance as a part of the damages held error.-Chas. T. Derr Const. Co. v. Gelruth, 120 P. 253.

DAMS.

See Waters and Water Courses, § 172.

DEATH.

See Appeal and Error, § 1050; Divorce. § 165; Railroads, §§ 347, 397, 400; Trial, § 233.

II. ACTIONS FOR CAUSING DEATH. (A) Right of Action and Defenses. $31 (Kan.) Under Code Civ. Proc. § 419 (Gen. St. 1909, § 6014), Kansas administrator of estate of nonresident held entitled to maintain action for wrongful death, notwithstanding passage of Laws 1889, c. 131.-Cox v. Kansas City, 120 P. 553.

(D) Pleading and Evidence.

§ 68 (Cal.) In an action for the death of plaintiff's decedent, evidence that the deceased was not addicted to drink, and that he did not gamble, was admissible.-Barboza v. Pacific Portland Cement Co., 120 P. 767.

(E) Damages, Forfeiture, or Fine. death held not excessive.-Cox v. Kansas City, $99 (Kan.) Award of $3,000 for causing

120 P. 553.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

See Attachment; Bankruptcy; Execution, § 293.

DECEDENTS.

out reference to the value of the real estate.

Kilgore v. Lyle, 120 P. 626.

VII. INADEQUATE AND EXCESSIVE

DAMAGES.

$ 132 (Okl.) Award of $25,000 for personal injuries held excessive, and to be set aside un

es, §§ 163, 181.

DECEIT.

DECLARATION.

See Pleading.

DECLARATIONS.