« PreviousContinue »
.to file a brief in the lower court and this after took a Texas & Pacific train to said court as in civil actions. No brief is filed station on the same railroad just across the in this case, and there is no indication that line in Louisiana. When he got to the Louione has ever been filed in the lower court. siana station he procured his whisky and Therefore, upon the motion of the Assistant waited for a train. A Missouri, Kansas & Attorney General, each of said cases is here- Topeka train passed through the Louisiana by ordered dismissed. Lewis v. State, 38 s. station into Texas before the Texas & PaW. 205; Sparks v. State, 47 S. W. 976; Mack cific train arrived returning to Marshall. He v. State, 57 S. W. 811; Bringhurst v. State, took the Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train 37 S. W. 757; Conrad v. State, 9 Tex. App. and went back thereon to a station in Texas, 674. It is needless to cite other authorities. where it crossed the Texas & Pacific line.
The Missouri, Kansas & Topeka train did not
go to Marshall. He got off the Missouri, WILLIAMS v. STATE, (No. 3233.)
Kansas & Topeka train at the station in (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Oct. 14, Texas & Pacific. When that reached the
Texas and waited for a later train on the 1914.) 1. WEAPONS (8 17*)-CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
station he got on it, intending to go back -QUESTIONS FOR JURY.
where he left his buggy, get his buggy, and In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a take his whisky back into Marshall. On his pistol, where the defense is that the defendant return, when he had gotten into Texas, the was a traveler at the time, the question whether he was a traveler in fact is one for the jury. sheriff observed him, and found a pistol on
[Ed. Note:--For other cases, see Weapons, his person, which he had carried with him Cent. Dig. $8 20, 22–33; Dec. Dig. & 17.* ] from his home on this trip, and the sheriff 2. WEAPONS (8$ 11, 17*)-CRIMINAL PROSECU- arrested him. His sole defense was that he TIONS-BURDEN OF PROOF-"TRAVELER. claimed to be a traveler. The case was tried
The burden is upon one who is arrested before the judge without a jury. while carrying a weapon upon his person to show that at the time he was a traveler-that is,
 Who is a traveler under our pistol one on a real journey-and the mere fact that statute is not defined thereby, and has not he was crossing back and forth from one coun- otherwise been defined. This court has all ty or state to another is not decisive on the the time held that whether or not an accusquestion. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Weapons,
ed is a traveler under the statute is a ques. Cent. Dig. 88 10–14, 20, 22-33; Dec. Dig. 88 tion for the jury. Shelton v. State, 27 Tes. 11, 17.*
App. 443, 11 S. W. 457, 11 Am. St. Rep. 200. For other definitions, see Words and Phrases,  There are many decisions of this court First and Second Series, Travel.]
holding under a given state of facts that a 3. WEAPONS (8 17*)-CRIMINAL PROSECUTION person is a traveler, and others he is not a -EVIDENCE.
In a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a traveler. The question practically resolves pistol, evidence held sufficient to warrant the itself into whether or not the accused is on judge in finding that the defendant, who had a real journey. The question of crossing the gone across the line to another state to procure county line from one county to another, or some whisky, and was then returning, was not a traveler.
the state line from this into another state, [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Weapons, back and forth, really is not decisive. Of Cent. Dig. 88 20, 22–33; Dec. Dig. § 17.*] course, the burden is always on an accused
Appeal from Harrison County Court; to show that he is a traveler under this Geo. L. Huffman, Judge.
statute to avoid conviction. There is no Gillis Williams was convicted of unlaw- question but that he carried the pistol on his fully carrying a pistol, and he appeals. Af- person. firmed.
 In our opinion, the judge below was Bibb & Scott, of Marshall, for appellant. authorized to find, as he did, that appellant C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. was not a traveler. Hickman v. State, 160
S. W. 382; Stanfield v. State, 34 S. W. 116; PRENDERGAST, P. J. Appellant was
Goss v. State, 40 S. W. 725; Harris v. State, convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol. 77 S. W. 610; Blackwell v. State, 34 Tes. The facts are clearly established and undis. Cr. R. 476, 31 S. W. 380; Jones v. State, 45 puted. Appellant lived in the city of Mar-S. W. 596; Darby v. State, 23 Tex, App. 407, shall, in said county. He had ordered some
5 S..W. 90. whisky expressed to him at a town just
The judgment will be affirmed. across the Texas line in Louisiana, 26 miles from Marshall. He had heard that other parties had theretofore been arrested for
BAKER v. STATE. (No. 3208.) bringing whisky from Louisiana into Mar- (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Oct. 14, shall, and he wanted to get his whisky with
1914.) out any trouble. Late one evening he went 1. RAPE ($ 47*)-PROSECUTION-EVIDENCE. in his buggy from Marshall eight miles to ing her complaint informed the witness that ac
Evidence that the prosecutrix before maka station on the Texas & Pacific Railroad, cused had never had sexual intercourse with where he put up his team, and soon there- her, and that another witness was in such a *For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes place that she must have heard the struggle if with me or laying down by me; I was trying to there had been a rape by force, as claimed by get him not to-just begging him not to. He prosecutrix, is material.
was not undressed when he came into the room. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Rape, Cent. I had disrobed. The defendant did have interDig. $ 66; Dec. Dig. § 47.*]
course with me at that time, on that occasion. 2. RAPE (8 51*)-PROSECUTION-EVIDENCE- intercourse. It was without my consent. I did
I guess that I understand what you mean by INSUFFICIENCY.
put forth efforts to prevent him from having inEvidence held insufficient to sustain a con- | tercourse with me there at that time. While he viction of rape.
was doing this act, I was just fighting and crying; [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Rape, Cent. that was all. The act did cause me pain and Dig. 88 71-77; Dec. Dig. & 51.*]
bloodshed. As to what he said to me with ref
erence to this matter, he told me that if I told Appeal from District Court, Young Coun- it he would kill me; he told me I was ruined if ty; Edgar Scurry, Judge.
I did not marry him; said that he was going B. M. Baker was convicted of rape, and to marry me. I said, 'You are not going to
marry me.' He said 'I am. He said, 'I did he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
it because I would die before anybody else could Arnold & Arnold and Kay & Akin, all of he was going to get rid of his wife.”
have you, and now they cannot. He said that Graham, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst.
That is all the evidence there is in the recAtty. Gen., for the State.
ord tending to show rape by force. She ad.
mitted she remained in appellant's employ HARPER, J. Appellant was convicted of until in February; that she made no comrape,' and his punishment assessed at five plaint to any one the next morning, nor for years' confinement in the penitentiary.
months thereafter. She also admitted the (1) We need not discuss the ground com
rooms adjoining the one she occupied that plaining of the action of the court in over night were also occupied. The occupants of ruling appellant's application for a continu- the other rooms testify they heard no noise ance as the case will be reversed. We will of any character that night. Appellant's say, though, that the testimony of Dr. J. W. father and mother testified that they OCGallaher and Mrs. C. S. Wynns would re-cupied one of the adjoining rooms, and that late to material matters. Dr. Gallaher, it is the partition was so thin that often after stated, would testify that prosecutrix had the prosecutris had gone to bed they lay in told him that appellant had never at any their bed and talked with her, speaking in time had sexual intercourse with her; this an ordinary tone. The prosecutris does not at a time when there was no reason to deny this, and they swear positively they falsify; whereas this record discloses that heard no cry or noise of any character that the lady made the complaint when it ap- night. In fact, appellant's mother testifies peared that a most serious charge would she was in the room with the prosecuting probably be brought against her. It is stat-witness that night waiting on her, and that ed that Mrs. Wynns occupied the adjoining appellant did not come in the room. It room on the night of the alleged rape; that further appears that the next morning after only a thin plank partition separated the this alleged rape the prosecutrix went about rooms; that she heard no outcry or com- her work at the hotel apparently in her plaint of any character that night. usual frame of mind, complaining to no one When it is considered that prosecutrix re- that she had been outraged. Charles Thigmained at the home of appellant several pen, Charles Osborn, Claud Rutherford, Mrs. days thereafter, that no one heard an out- Bridges, Will Bridges, Mrs. Gus Rutherford, cry that night, that she made no complaint Mrs. Fanny Rutherford, and other witnesses that night, nor the next morning to any testify that the reputation of prosecutrix for onein fact, made no complaint for months virtue and chastity was bad. There is testhereafter-the testimony becomes material timony in the record which would support a in a case of rape by force.
finding that appellant had sexual intercourse  In fact, we would be unwilling to sus- with prosecutrix at different times, but not tain a judgment of guilt of rape by force on under circumstances which would render testimony of the character shown in this him guilty of rape by force. It will be noted record. The prosecutrix, Miss Johnnie in the prosecutrix's testimony she says apGraves, says she was 20 years of age at the pellant promised to get rid of his then wife date of the alleged offense. Appellant was and marry her. Witnesses testify that the running the Mountain Side Hotel, at Gra- prosecutrix had told them while working at ham. Prosecutrix worked for appellant at the hotel she would be Mrs. Baker soon, and this hotel, waiting on the table and doing the record discloses that no cry of rape was other work. She says one night he came to raised by her until months thereafter. her room and committed the act with which further appears from the testimony of Dr. he is charged. She says about 11 o'clock on Terrell that shortly before this indictment the night of January 10, 1913—
was found that the prosecutrix sent for him, "Beecher Baker came in there and kneeled down having heard that he had a letter reflecting hy my bed and began to play with me, and so directly he said, 'I am going to lay down by on her. After she had read the letter, which you,' and he did. I did make an effort at that was written by appellant, she became angry. time to prevent him from getting in the bed Then the doctor testifies :
"I did have a conversation with her with ref-1 2. CRIMINAL LAW (8 351*) — EVIDENCE – ADerence to Beecher Baker having carnal inter- MISSIBILITY-THREATS. course with her. She seemed to be very angry Testimony that the accused told the witwith Beecher Baker, and she told me if he ness several hours after the killing that he was fooled with her that she was going to kill him, not going to be arrested and that all he wanted or something of that kind--if she came across was one shot at the constable was admissible to him she would kill him--and I laughed and ask- to show a threat to resist arrest, regardless of ed her where was the gun. She was a little whether it constituted a part of the res gestä. excited. She said 'Can't I get him for rape?' I (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal said, 'Did he rape you?'. She said, 'Well, not Law, Cent. Dig. 88 776, 778-785, 930-932; Dec. that I know of.' I said, 'What did he do?' She Dig. & 351.*] said, 'He came to my room one night about mid-3. HOMICIDE ($ 307*)_SUBMISSION OF ISSUES night, and came to the bed and sat down on the
-EVIDENCE. bed.' I said, 'Did he have intercourse with you?' and she said, "No.' I said, Did he get the question of murder, and the defendant's evi
Where the state's evidence presented only in the bed with you?' and she said, 'No.' Idence raised only the question of manslaughter said, 'Did he put his hands on you ? She said, and accidental killing, the court properly re"He only took hold of my hand and sat down on fused to instruct on aggravated assault. the side of my bed.'. I said, 'Well, was there any one close by, if you were frightened did Cent. Dig. $$ 638-641; Dec. Dig. $ 307.* ]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Homicide, you say anything? She said, 'No.' I believe that she told me that some of the family were in Appeal from District Court, Navarro Counthe room adjoining her. I asked her why she ty; H. B. Daviss, Judge. came to me. I said, 'I have never been your particular friend; I just hardly know you when
Handy Walker was convicted of manI see you;' and she said that John Dolman slaughter, and appeals. Affirmed. told her to come to me, and he told her that she would have to swear everything that she could
Hawkins Scarborough and W. W. Ballew, against Baker; if she did not, she would get both of Corsicana, for appellant. C. E. Lane, into trouble herself. Now, that may not be the Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. exact words, but that was the meaning of it; might have said that they would send her to the penitentiary, or something of that kind."
PRENDERGAST, P. J.  Appellant was It further appears from the record that
convicted of manslaughter for killing his there was some investigation being had as to wife, and his punishment fixed at three years
in the whether Baker, appellant, had tried to poi
enitentiary. He pr rly filed his
The court son his wife, and she had been informed that plea for a suspended sentence. she might be implicated in it. It was after submitted the question to the jury and told this, and other matters unnecessary to re
them that, if they found him guilty and ascite, that she brought the charge of rape find, (1) if he had ever been convicted of a
sessed his punishment at five years or less, to against appellant. As before stated, under such circumstances we do not feel inclined felony in this or any other state, and (2) to let the judgment stand, when the prosecu- if they found both of these questions in the
whether his reputation was good or bad, and trix by her testimony shows no great resist- a thirmative that they could, in their discre
was made, and the other testimony would indicate that, if an act of intercourse tion, if they saw fit, recommend that his sentook place on that occasion, it was by mutual tence be suspended, and, if they so desired, to consent. It may be that the prosecutris so state in their verdict. The jury returned and appellant were criminally intimate, and a verdict merely finding him guilty of manthe testimony would suggest that probably three years, saying nothing about the ques
slaughter and assessing his punishment at this was true, but, if he did undertake to tion of the suspension of his sentence. This poison his wife in order that he might narry the prosecutrix, of course he would be verdict was received. He made no objection guilty of a grave criminal offense, but not whatever to it at the time, nor did he then in of rape on the prosecutrix.
any way seek to have the jury find a verdict Having this view of the case, we do not on said issue or any of the matters necessary deem it necessary to discuss the other questo find in his favor thereon. The verdict was tions raised.
rendered May 6, 1914. On May 8th he filed The judgment is reversed, and the cause
his motion for a new trial, but at that time is remanded..
and therein made no complaint whatever about the verdict as to suspension of sen
tence. For the first time, on May 16, 1914, in WALKER v. STATE. (No. 3235.)
his amended motion for new trial he com(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Oct. 14, plains in this particular. 1914.)
It would have been proper for the jury to 1. CRIMINAL LAW ( 933*)-VERDICT-WAIVER specifically find, as directed by the court, on OF ERROR.
this question and in the several particulars The right to object to the failure of the verdict to make any recommendation of suspension as told by the court, but he cannot sit by and of sentence was waived where the accused first have the verdict received and the jury discomplained thereof in his amended motion for charged, and, when it is too late for the court a new trial filed on May 16th after rendition to properly remedy the matter in the trial, of verdict on May 6th. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal
complain of the failure of the jury to find on Law,, Cent. Dig. 88 2283–2292'; Dec. Dig. $ said matters. This court in many cases has 933.*]
held that, where the court submitted the sus*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
pended sentence to the jury, and the jury, mutual separation. They divided their propmade no finding thereon, or where they found erty, and deceased went back to her former that he had not before been convicted of a home, he remaining where he was, or going felony, and that his reputation was good, but elsewhere. That on the day of the killing he failed and omitted to make any recommenda- passed the house where deceased was some tion of the sus nsion of the sentence, that 200 yards; she and her woman companion the presumption was that the jury refused to seeing him do so. After he had got that disrecommend a suspension, and have all the tance, he turned, came back to the house with time sustained such verdicts and judgments. his gun loaded, and the two women in the Roberts v. State, 158 S. W. 1003; Potter v. house did all they could to prevent his enterState, 159 S. W. 846; King v. State, 162 S. ing it. He demanded that his wife should W. 890; Bowen v. State, 162 S. W. 1146; come out. She refused. He then attempted Cook v. State, 165 S. W. 573.
to force the door open. The two women reIn a still more recent case (Mills v. State, sisted this. He shot either through the door, 168 S. W. 88) we held, in effect, that when it or the wall of the house right at it.
He was shown by proper bill, as it was in that claims it was accidentally; the facts would case, that the jury could not agree as to a justify the jury to believe purposely. When finding on the suspension of sentence, and the this shot was fired, the two women left that verdict itself showing that fact, that it was door. He ran around the house to the other error for the court to refuse to require a find- side and forced an entrance through another ing or grant a new trial when he received door. The two women tried to avoid his such verdict. But, as is stated in that case, shooting them, the deceased seeking to get. proper objection was timely made, and the and remain, behind the other woman. In fact showu that the jury could not agree up- their struggles they ran over a stove and fell on that issue and expressly so stated in their upon the floor. The other woman succeeded verdict, but that case is no authority for set- in getting up. The deceased did not. From ting aside the verdict in this case, because no the state's side, the appellant then, while his objection was made at the proper time, and wife was lying on the floor helpless, deliberthe record nowhere, even now, shows that the ately pointed his gun at her, shot her in the jury failed or refused to agree upon that is back with a shotgun and killed her. He
claimed that he struck her with the gun  Several hours—perhaps five-after the while she was on the floor and that it was ackilling, appellant told Otto Simmons that he cidentally discharged; that he did not intend was not going to be arrested; that all he to kill her. As soon as he killed her he left wanted was one shot at the constable (a the house and went away. There can be no white man). The court, over appellant's ob- question but that this evidence and none of jection that this evidence was not res gestae the other, which is unnecessary to recite, and irrelevant, immaterial, and inadmissible, raised or suggested the issue of aggravated properly admitted it. Evidence of resisting assault. Hatton v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 586, an arrest is always admissible against an ac- 21 S. W. 679; Yzaguirre v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. cused. Mitchell v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 39, R. 514, 85 S. W. 14. 106 S. W, 124; Moreno v. State, 160 S. W. The judgment is affirmed. 361. And, of course, a threat to do so is likewise admissible. The question of res gestæ does not apply. Such evidence is an admission by an accused, whether res gestae or not. RUTHERFORD v. STATE. (No. 3213.)
 The only other question urged by ap- (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Oct. 14, pellant is that the court erred in refusing to
1914.) submit to the jury a proper charge on aggra- 1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION ($ 159*) rated assault. There was no error in this.
AMENDMENT-POWER OF COURT. The evidence in no way raised or suggested Where an indictment, charging the offense this offense. The state's case, without ques- of pursuing the occupation of an itinerant phytion, raised only an unlawful homicide-mur- used the word “-physicial" instead of “physician, der. That of appellant raised only the ques- the court, under the direct provisions of White's tion of manslaughter and accidental killing. Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 587, is without authorThe court submitted both of these issues, and, ity to substitute “n” for “”; the matter being
one of substance. in addition, negligent homicide. The jury
[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Indictment found against appellant on both negligent and Information, Cent. Dig. $$ 505-514; Dec. homicide and accidental killing, and found Dig. & 159.*] him guilty of manslaughter. The evidence
2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION ($ 159*) shows: That deceased and appellant were SUFFICIENCY. husband and wife; she rather a young wo
An indictment improperly amended in a man; he rather an old man. Trouble arose
matter of substance will not support the convic
tion, between them. He claimed that she was
[Ed. Note.-For other_cases, see Indictment guilty of improper conduct with another ne- and Information, Cent. Dig. 8 505–514; Dec. gro mnan.
Their differences resulted in their Dig. & 159.*]
3. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS (8 6*)-ITINER- | ceedings, and would show him guilty of vioANT PHYSICIAN-WHO ARE.
lating that provision of the Code prohibitWhere accused for over a year preceding ing any one from practicing medicine without the prosecution had been a resident of the city of V. and had practiced medicine in the county having obtained a license from the medical in which such city was situated, he cannot be board and registering same, and not the convicted of pursuing the occupation of an "itin- article preventing one from practicing medierant physician" without payment of the tax required, even though he was not authorized cine as an itinerant physician without haring to practice in the county, because he had not paid an occupation tax. Had he paid the obtained a liecnse and registered as a physician. occupation tax under the evidence in this
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. $$ 6-11; Dec. Dig. case, he would not have been authorized to § 6.*]
practice medicine, and, as the evidence
clearly shows that his fixed residence since Appeal from Wilbarger County Court; J. he has been in this state has been at Vernon, B. Copeland, Judge.
he would not be liable for the tax levied on J. S. Rutherford was convicted of pursu- traveling physicians. Taking this view of ing the occupation of itinerant physician with the case, it is unnecessary to discuss the out having paid the tax required, and he ap. other questions raised. peals. Reversed, and prosecution ordered
The judgment is reversed, and the prosecudismissed.
tion ordered dismissed. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
HARPER, J. Appellant was prosecuted and convicted under an indictment charging
LAMB v. STATE. (No. 3204.) him with engaging in and pursuing the occu- (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. June 26, pation of a physician, traveling from place to
1914. On Motion for Rehearing,
Oct. 28, 1914.) place, without having paid the tax levied on
1. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 1091*)--APPEAL-BILL said occupation, and his punishment was as
OF EXCEPTIONS-RULINGS ON EVIDENCE. sessed at a fine of $75, being the amount of
A bill of exceptions in a murder case althe state and county tax on such occupation. leged that the widow of deceased was called
[1, 2] In that part of the indictment where by the state and asked if, before defendant in it was intended to allege that appellant time, she ever heard him make any threat
killed deceased, during her husband's entire life"followed the occupation of physician, travel against defendant, and answered that she had ing from place to place," etc., the word not, to which defendant objected as an attempt “physician” was written “physicial”; an “l” to prove deceased's character, because it related
to a purported statement by deceased long prior being written where it should have been an
to the killing, and because defendant did not “n.” Appellant, among other grounds, moved rely on threats as a provocation. The court to quash the indictment because there was no overruled the objection, and defendant then and such occupation taxed as a “physicial.” The there excepted and tendered his bill, which was court refused to quash the indictment, and the bill was too meager and insufficient to re
approved, signed, and ordered filed. Held, that ordered the clerk to change the indictment quire review. so as to read “physician." This the court [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal had no authority to do, as this word was a
Law, Cent. Dig. $$ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2819, matter of substance in the offense charged 2819. 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931–2933,
2943; Dec. Dig. § 1091.*] and not mere matter of form. An indictment
2. HOMICIDE ($ 158*)— EVIDENCE-THREATS. cannot be amended in matter of substance.
Where, in a prosecution for homicide, acArticle 587, White's Ann. Cr. Proc. And it cused on cross-examination of a state's witness is a rule of law that an indictment thus sought to show intense hostility by deceased altered will not support a conviction. Calvin against him which had continued for a considv. State, 25 Tex. 789; Edwards v. State, 10 ask deceased's widow if she ever heard her hus
erable time, the state was properly permitted to Tex. App. 25. Had the trial court not under- band, during his entire lifetime, make a threat taken to change the wording of the indict- of any kind against defendant. ment, the whole context might have been [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Homicide, sufficient, notwithstanding this mistake in Cent. Dig. $$_293–296 ; Dec. Dig. § 158.*] spelling the word "physician,” but we cannot 3. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 363*)-RES GEST.E.
In a prosecution for homicide, evidence as countenance the alteration of indictments in
to what was said and done by defendant and matters of substance after they have been deceased from the time they first came in view returned into court.
of each other at the time of the killing, that de  Again, we do not think the evidence in fendant when leaving the scene immediately this case would sustain the conviction. He when the constable attempted to arrest him re
thereafter had six-shooters in each hand, and was prosecuted for pursuing the occupation sisted arrest and shot the constable, was admisof itinerant physician, going from place to sible as res gestæ. place, in the practice of that profession, [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal without paying the tax levied by law. The Law, Cent. Dig. $ 804; Dec. Dig. & 363.*] evidence conclusively shows that he had been 4. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 396*)-RECEPTION OF a resident of the city of Vernon, in the
Where accused, on cross-examination of a county of Wilbarger, for more than a year state's witness, sought to show intense hostility at the date of the institution of these pro-) by decedent toward him, and various acts of un
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes