« PreviousContinue »
no trust ex maleficio is raised because the com- VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND ENpany wrongfully took the deed in its own name.
FORCEMENT OF TRUST. -Bonner v. Kimball-Lacy Lumber Co., 169 S. (B) Right to Follow Trust Property or W. 242.
Proceeds Thereof. $110 (Ark.) Evidence, in an action to estab
$ 356 (Ky.) Where a husband misappropriated lish a
trust ex maleficio held insufficient.- property given him by his wife in trust for Hunter v. Feild, 169 S. W. 813.
their son, and thereafter, in an effort to replace
it. turned over to the wife to hold for the use II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA
of the son a part of the trust fund, the funds TION.
in the wife's hands were not deprived of their (B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of trust character, and the trust was not defeated, Cestui Que Trust.
though the particular money received from_the 8 131 (Mo.) Where property was devised to wife was not returned.-Graham's Adm'r v. Engtrustees to sell and pay the proceeds to testa- lish, 169 S. W. 836. tor's 'executors for distribution, the trustees baving failed to sell the land, the legal estate in
UNDUE INFLUENCE. the trustees was vested by the statute of uses See Deeds, 88 17, 196; Venue, $ 50; Wills, 88 (Rev. St. 1909, $ 2867) in the persons entitled to the equitable estate.-De Lashmutt v. Teetor,
155, 166, 329, 332, 400. 169 S. W. 34.
UNFAIR COMPETITION. § 152 (Ky.) Where insurance company had sold to a spendthrift, since deceased, shares See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, $ 70. of its stock at par value, and there was no evidence as to value, except that deceased had sold UNILATERAL CONTRACTS. it for different amounts, the insurance company's claim against the estate for such stock See Contracts, $ 10. was properly allowed at the highest price re
UNITED STATES. ceived by deceased for any of it.-Ford v. Southern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 169 S. W. 874.
See Public Lands, $$ 61, 112; Trade-Marks Where an insurance company issued a policy and Trade-Names. for a large amount upon the life of a man whose property was held in a spendthrift trust, the
VACATION. premium on which policy was secured by a mortgage upon the trust estate, and thereafter See Judgment, $ 143; Municipal Corporations, the company procured the cancellation of the $ 657. policy by the payment of the cash surrender
VAGRANCY. value, it is entitled to recover against he spendthrift estate only the amount actually paid and
$ 3 (Ark.) In a prosecution under Kirby's uut the premium for the time the insurance was Dig. $ 2068, evidence that defendant had said carried.-Id.
that he had been gambling in other counties Where a spendthrift, whose father had de- within 12 months before the indictment was advised property in trust for him until he reached missible; and his gaming more than 12 months the age of 25 years, borrowed from an insurance before the indictment, though protected by the company, giving a void mortgage on the trust statute of limitations, was also admissible. estate therefor, the insurance coinpany is en
Cannon v. State, 169 S. W. 812. titled to a general unsecured claim for the amount actually advanced to him.-Id.
See Evidence, § 474.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. $ 189 (Mo.) A substituted trustee, appointed by an equity court in Maryland vice 'a surviving See Brokers: Descent and Distribution, $ 75; testamentary trustee, had no power to convey
Evidence, 460; Execution, $ 226: Execureal property belonging to testator located in
tors and Administrators, $8 137, 138, 142, Missouri.-De Lashmutt v. Teetor, 169 S. W.
151; Frauds. Statute of. $$ 49, 110, 118; 34.
Judgment, $ 590; Levees, $ 28; Limitation of Where a trustee held title for a life tenant Actions. $$ 100, 172; Mechanics' Liens. $ only, she could not bind the remaindermen or
199; Sales; Specific Performance, 21; their title, and could not dispose of the remainder Taxation, $S641-656; Trusts, $$ 17, 18, by estoppel or by ratification of a void deed. 6342, 6334, 81. -Id. & 191 (Ky:) In view of the contract in pursu
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
PARTIES. ance of which a trust deed was executed, held, that the trustee was empowered to make con
(C) Bona Fide Purchasers. veyances to purchasers of the property.-Collins $ 231 (Ky.) Constructive notice furnished by v. Combs, 169 S. W. 721.
a recorded instrument as to the boundary of the $ 191 (Mo.). Where testator devised real prop- land and every other material fact recited thereerty to certain of his executors as trustees to in is as conclusive as actual notice.-Loeb v. sell and pay the proceeds to the executors for Conley, 169 $. W. 575. distribution, the power could not survive a dis
If recorded instrument furnishes marks by tribution, settlement, and discharge of the ex- which the land can be identified or sufficient to ecutors, and could not be exercised by a sub- put an intended purchaser upon notice, it constituted trustee.-De Lashmutt v. Teetor, 169 stitutes constructive notice though the descripS. W. 34.
tion is not accurate.-Id. $ 237 (Mo.) Acceptance of a partial distribu- $ 232 (Ky.) Notwithstanding the failure to tion of the interest of certain remaindermen un- file a lis pendens notice of an attachment or exder the will of their grandfather, without knowl-ecution, as required by Ky. St. § 2358a, subseedge that such distribution consisted in part of quent purchasers claiming superior rights must the proceeds of an invalid sale of the land by be bona fide purchasers, and take notice of pera substituted trustee, held not to constitute a sons in possession, especially in view of Ky. St. ratification of such sale, nor to estop them to $ 210.-Daniel v. Iloltclaw, 169 S. W. 1013. object to it.-De Lashmutt v. Teetor, 169 S. W. Where, after execution sale. execution debtor
turned property over to creditor's attorney to For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (3) NUMBER
apply the rents on the judgment, and a tenant, and returned to ranch of D. who refused to surtook possession, subsequent incumbrancer's rights render them, he could not be joined and reheld subject to rights of execution creditor, quired to answer for the conversion, in an acthough lis pendens notice was not filed, as re- tion by plaintiff against the carrier, in a county quired by Ky. St. § 2358a.-10.
other than that in which he resided.-Gulf, C. & $ 232 (Mo.) One who purchases real estate in S. F. Ry. Co. v. Boger, 169 S. W. 1093. the open and visible possession of a third per. son is chargeable with notice of the title and III. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE right of the third person.-Stone v. Kansas
OF TRIAL. City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88.
$ 50 (Ky.) That plaintiff is personally popu
lar in the county where suit is brought, and has VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR.
numerous relatives there, does not constitute (A) Lien and Recovery of Land. undue influence authorizing a change of venue $ 260 (Ky.) One who levies upon land belong- within Ky. St. $ 1094.-Louisville & N. R. Co ing to his judgment debtor, which is shown by v. Nethery, 169 S. W. 883. the deed to be incumbered by a lien for the purchase price, acquires only a lien inferior to
VERDICT. the purchase-money lien.-Likens v. Pate, 169 See Appeal and_Error, 88 999-1022; Criminal S. W. 734. $ 278 (Ky.) Where land subject to a mortgage
Law, 8 885; Homicide, 8 313; Trial, $8 330
365. and indivisible was sold and vendor's lien notes
WAGES. taken for a portion of the price, the holder of the notes could not obtain an order for the sale See Master and Servant, 88 70, 82. of the land to satisfy his lien until the maturity of the mortgage.-Maddox v. Bynum, 169 S.
WAIVER. W. 981.
$ 289 (Ky.) Where a lien for the purchase See Appeal and Error, š& 216, 644, 770; Carprice of land is foreclosed by judicial sale, and
riers, § 314; Courts, 37; Criminal Law, the land brings more than two-thirds of its ap
$8 636, 933; Eminent Domain, $ 185; Expraised value, there is no equity of redemption
ecutors and Administrators, 8431; Mechanremaining which need thereafter be foreclosed.
ics' Liens, & 199; Pleading, $ 412; Sales, s -Likens v. Pate, 169 S. W. 734.
121; Taxation, $ 482. VII. REMEDIES OF PURCHASER.
WARNING. (B) Actions for Breach of Contract. See Master and Servant, $$ 150, 153. $ 349 (Tex.Civ.App.) A petition for a dor's breach of a contract for the sale of land
WARRANTY. held not subject to an exception that the con. See Sales, 88 267-284. tract as alleged did not sufficiently describe the land to comply with the statute of frauds. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. --Spaulding v. Smith, 169 S. W. 627.
A petition for a vendor's breach of contract, See Fraudulent Conveyances, Š 51.
WEAPONS. $ 351 (Tex.Civ.App.) A vendee's measure of damage for the vendor's breach of contract is See Homicide, 88 90, 119. the difference between the contract price and $ 4 (Tenn.) A pistol is property, and a person the market value of the land at the date of is not prohibited from owning one, notwiththe breach, and not the profit the vendee would standing Shannon's Code, $ 6650, relative to have made under a contract of resale.-Spauld-selling or offering to sell, or bringing into the ing v. Smith, 169 S. W. 627.
state for the purpose of disposing of, pistols
other than army or navy pistols.-Heaton v. VENIRE.
State, 169 S. W. 750.
8 6 (Tenn.) Person who picked up pistol to See Jury, 8 70.
defend himself against an unlawful assault and VENUE.
fired two shots, whereupon it was taken away
from him, held not to have "carried" such pisSee Appeal and Error, $ 965; Criminal Law, tol within Shannon's Code, $ 6641.-Heaton v.
$$ 110-134; Municipal Corporations, $ 1024; State, 169 S. W. 750. Telegraphs and Telephones, $ 62.
8 10 (Tenn.) Under Shannon's Code, g 6641,
it is not necessary to a conviction that the II. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF weapon be concealed, unless it be a razor or an PARTIES.
army or navy pistol usually used in warfare.$ 22 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. $$ 78, 80, Heaton v. State, 169 S. W. 750. where an action was brought against two de- $ !! (Tex.Cr.App.) That accused was crossing fendants, only one of whom resided and was back and forth from one county or state to anserved in the county, the action, having been other is not decisive on the question as to dismissed as to such defendant, was properly whether he was a traveler.-Williams v. State. dismissed as to the other.-Martin v. Franklin, 169 S. W. 1154. 169 S. W. 540.
$ 13 (Tenn.) It is not a defense to a charge of § 22 (Ky.) Where an action brought against carrying a pistol under Shannon's Code. $ two telephone companies, pursuant to Civ. Code 6641, that accused armed himself solely for the Prac. $ 78. was dismissed as to the defendant purpose of self-defense, or that he carried the residing in the county, the court, under Civ. pistol only on his own farm or premises.-HeaCode Prac. $ 80, lost jurisdiction of the defend-ton v. State, 169 S. W. 750. ant residing outside the county.-Gainesboro $ 17 (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether one accused of Telephone Co. v. Buckner, 169 S. W. 1000.
carrying arms was a traveler is for the jury.8 22 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, by a carrier's neg- Williams v. State, 169 S. W. 1154. ligence, plaintiff's cattle escaped from the cars The burden is upon one who is arrested while
carrying a weapon upon his person to show that and conduct towards him, as his wife, and the at the time he was a traveler.-Id.
fact that she, by her treatment of and general Evidence held sufficient to warrant finding demeanor towards him, gains his affection and that the defendant was not a traveler.-Id. confidence does not constitute undue influence.
-Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135.
$ 166 (Ky.) Evidence in a will contest held See Commerce, $14, 61; Intoxicating Liquors, -Coffey v. Miller, 169 S. W. 852.
insufficient to raise an issue of undue influence. $ 238. WILLS.
8 166 (Mo.) Evidence that the feelings of tes.
tator were hostile to some of the proponents of See Conversion, $$ 11, 22; Descent and Dis- his will cannot show undue influence by them or
tribution; Evidence, ş 317; Guardian and in their behalf.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. Ward, 88 11, 35; Limitation of Actions, 8 W. 135. 39; Trusts, 88 131, 152, 191, 237.
V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY,
ANNULMENT. 8 38 (Ky.) An insane delusion is a belief which springs spontaneously from a diseased or (E) Jurisdiction, Limitations, and Laches. perverted mind, without reason or without § 260 (Tenn.) In view of Shannon's Code, s foundation in fact.-Coffey v. Miller, 169 S. W. 3955, 20 years' delay on the part of the devisees 852.
of land, who were in possession, does not prevent $ 50 (Mo.) One has a disposing mind and them from maintaining an action against dememory when he is capable of comprehending fendants, devisees of other land, to set up the the character, nature, and extent of his prop- will which had been lost so as to furnish color erty, all the names and persons who naturally of title. --Alsobrook v. Orr, 169 S. W. 1165. come within the range of his bounty, and the disposition he is making of his property.—An
(H) Evidence. drew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135.
$ 292 (Mo.) Contestants may not show that $ 53 (Mo.) Testimony of statements made to certain legatees took no part in the case bewitnesses by proponents of the will as to the cause offered money by proponents for not condition of testator's mind is admissible on a joining in the contest; it appearing this was contest only to contradict the proponents as by way of compromise, and not as bribery of witnesses, and not as evidence of such condi- witnesses.-Andrew v. "Linebaugh, 169 s. w. tion.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. 135.
$ 55 (Ark.) On the trial of a will contest, evidence as to testamentary, capacity held suffi- ed holographic will is not incompetent to testi
$ 294 (Ky.) A beneficiary under an unattestcient to support a verdict in favor of the fy to testator's handwriting (Ky. St. $$ 4828, will.-Boone v. Boone, 169 S. W. 779.
4836).-McNamara v. Coughlin, 169 S. W. 555. $ 55 (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to show testamentary incapacity in that testator had an
(1) Hearing or Trial. insane delusion that certain of his nieces and nephews had mistreated him.-Coffey v. Miller,
$ 324 (Ky.) Under conflicting evidence, held 169 S. W. 852.
the question of genuineness of a holographic will $ 55 (Ky.) Where a will was attacked on the was for the jury.-McNamara v. Coughlin, 169
S. W. 555. ground that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity, a verdict upholding the will held warrant- $ 324 (Mo.) The evidence as to testamentary ed by the evidence.-Campbell v. Adkins, 169 capacity held to make a case_for the jury. S. W. 996.
Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135.
8 329 (Mo.) Because contestants could not loIV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
cate proponents while the will was being drawn, (A) Nature and Essentials of Testamenta- it is not to be presumed that they had prević ry Dispositions.
ously unduly influenced testator, so as to call $70 (Ky.) The validity of a will is deter- for an instruction on prior undue influence.mined by the laws in force at the death of the Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. testator. -Hudson's Guardian v. Hudson, 169 S. $ 332 (Mo.) It is proper to state in an inW. 891.
struction on undue influence what influence tes$ 88 (Ky.) Where a husband contributed mon- tator's wife has the right to exercise over his ey to erect a building on land owned by his mind in disposing of his property.-Andrew v. wife on condition that the wife would devise the Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. house and lot to him, her will made under such agreement, delivered to the husband, could not
(K) Review. be construed as a deed of conveyance effective 8 396 (Ark.) In will contest, held that failfrom delivery, instead of being effective at her ure to charge as to incapacity of city to take death.-Banks v. Cornelison, 169 S. W. 502. devise could not be complained of, where no (B) Form and Contents of Instruments.
such instruction was requested, especially as
such incapacity would not affect the validity $ 105 (Ark.) Designation of legatee as neph- of the will.-Boone v. Boone, 169 S. W. 779. ew of grandson held not to affect validity of will, where he was also designated as the son
$ 400 (Mo.) Admission of evidence that tesof the testator's son.-Boone v. Boone, 169 S. son's notes 'held by testator was not reversible
tator's wife, and not he, gave to her son the W. 779.
error, since it had no such probative force to (C) Execution.
show lack of testamentary capacity or undue $111 (Ark.) That a testator, in signing his influence of the son or mother on testator in name on one of the sheets of his will, omitted the making of his will that it should have one letter of his first name did not affect the changed the minds of the jurors.-Andrew v. validity of the will, where it appeared that he Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. intended to and did sign it.-Boone v. Boone, Instructing that certain testimony could not 169 S. W. 779.
be taken as any evidence of the mental condi
tion of testator or of undue influence on him (F) Mistake, Undae Influence, and Fraud. was harmless, where it had no such probative
$ 155 (Mo.) Such influence as testator's wife force as should have changed the minds of the may acquire over him by her personal demeanor jurors.-Id.
(G) Dehts of Testator and Incımbrances
on Property. (A) General Rules. $ 439 (Ark.) The court in construing a will plate that the proceeds of his life insurance
$ 848 (Ky.) A testator's will held to contemmust ascertain the intention of testator, as should be used only to discharge his one-half of gathered from his entire will, and give effect the purchase price of land which he and his to it when not in conflict with recognized rules stepmother had jointly bought, and hence the of law.—Heiseman v. Lowenstein, 169 S. W. devisee of the stepmother is bound to pay her 224.
unpaid share of the purchase money.-Penick v.
Tribble, 169 S. W. 607. (B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega
Under Kentucky Stats. § 2080, plaintif may tees and Their Respective Shares.
require that defendant, who was, like him. ed. $ 531 (Ky.) Where testator declared that his titled to one-half of a one-half interest in land, property should be divided between S. and I. discharge an incumbrance on the whole tract, and the three daughters of. G., and the five the other half of which was devised to the dedevisees were his nieces, the division must be fendant, where defendant's testator, the owner per capita.—Justice v. Stringer, 169 S. W. 836. of such other half, was bound to pay it.-Id. (C) Survivorship: Representation, and
WITNESSES. 8 538 (Ky.) In a devise to a granddaughter to See Affidavits; Counties, $ 139; Criminal Law, be given to her at her majority or marriage, but, § 594; Evidence; Executors and Administraif she died before that or without heirs, to be
tors. given to a grandson, the limitation over applies if the granddaughter dies without heirs after the I. ATTENDANCE, PRODUCTION OF property has been turned over to her.-Johnson
DOCUMENTS, AND COMv. Powell, 169 S. W. 1009.
PENSATION. (E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre. § 16 (Ky.) The production of the books and ated.
papers of a corporation before the grand jury $ 616. (Ky.) A wife held to take only a life may be required by a subpæna duces tecum ad estate in the property of her husband, and that testificandum directed to the agent of the corthe principal might, in the discretion of the poration having possession thereof, or by a subexecutors, be used for her support.-Hickman v. pæna duces tecum without the ad testificandum Moore, 169 S. W. 827.
clause directed to the corporation itself.-Com$ 616 (Ky.) A devise to a granddaughter when monwealth v. Southern Express Co., 169 S. W.
517. she attains her majority or marriage "to hold and keep as her own" does not give her an ab
II. COMPETENCY. solute power of disposition so as to make a lim. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen. itation over to another void as inconsistent
eral. therewith.-Johnson v. Powell, 169 S. W. 1009. A devise of property to the devisee to hold and
$ 52 (Ky.) On a trial for conspiring to cause keep as her own, but on her death without heirs wife of another conspirator not indicted was
a person to be falsely accused of a crime, the to another, less the amount expended for food, clothing, and schooling for the first devisee, she wealth, 169 S. W. 584.
competent witness.-Rutland Commonmay use the principal of the fund if necessary for her support and maintenance.-Id.
$ 52 (Ky.) Where, in a prosecution of two
defendants for housebreaking, evidence was of(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.
fered to show that the wife of one of the de.
fendants secreted certain of the stolen proper8 672 (Ark.) A testator owning chiefly real ty, she was incompetent to deny such fact in estate and some personal property of specula- favor of her husband, but the other defendant tive value, who directed his executors to pay
was entitled to her testimony.-Lawson v. Comspecified sums to trust companies to pay spe- monwealth, 169 S. W. 587. cified sums in installments to beneficiaries named with gift over on their death, and who directed the executors to close up the estate as
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In
terested, for or against Representaspeedily as possible, created a trust for the
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title benefit of the beneficiaries named.-Heiseman or Interest of Persons Deceased or Inv. Lowenstein, 169 S. W. 224.
competent. (I) Actions to Construe Wills.
§ 149 (Tenn.) Under Shannon's Code, $ 5598,
providing that in actions by or against execu. 8 695 (Ark.) A court of equity has jurisdic- tors, neither party may testify against the tion to construe a will creating a trust.- other as to any transaction by the testator, Heiseman v. Lowenstein, 169 S. W. 224. etc., held that the maker of a note to a partner,
sued by the surviving partners, one of whom VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
was the executor of the deceased partner, might DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
testify as to a payment to the deceased partner.
-Turner v. Huggins, 169 S. W. 754. (D) Election. $ 782 (Ky.) Under the direct provisions of (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Ky. St. § 1404, a widow may renounce the share
Communications. given her by will, and claim dower and distribu $ 192 (Ky.) Plaintiff, in an action for alienative share.-Redwine's Ex'r v. Redwine, 169 S. tion of his wife's affections, may not relate conW. 864.
versations between himself and wife, in the $ 800. (Tex.Civ.App.) Will giving testator's absence of defendant or some other person who wife life estate held not to affect her communi- might testify to what occurred.-Willey v. Howty title to one-half of certain land, and she did ell, 169 S. W. 519. not surrender such title by accepting the life es $ 211 (Ark.) In an action for injuries to a tate;, and hence, limitations ran in favor of passenger by falling on a defective depot platan adverse occupant as to a one-half interest form, Kirby's Dig. & 3098, held to disqualify in the land, notwithstanding the suspension of the passenger's physician to testify that she remaindermen's right of action during the ex
afflicted with cancer and died of that istence of the life estate.-Swilley V. Phillips, disease.-St. Louis. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Fu169 S. W. 1117.
qua, 169 S. W. 786.
ant was the author of her condition, and he (B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina- | introduced evidence that she had had intertion.
course with others and did not know who was
the father of her child, the state was properly § 268 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused elicited from a witness on cross-examination a partial permitted to prove her general reputation for
chastity and virtue without defendant having answer to a question, the court, properly per: first introduced evidence that such reputation mitted the witness to answer the question in full, though this included advice given the wit
was bad.-Fondren v. State, 169 S. W. 411. ness by a third person.-Taylor v. State, 169 (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. S, W. 672. $ 277 (Tex.Cr.App.) That accused had filed a
$ 379 (Ky.) Where, on an issue as to insured's plea invoking the benefits of the suspended sen- health when reinstated, plaintiff's two sisters tence law did not authorize the state to prove testified that he was in good health at that time, by him while a witness in his own behalf that defendant could show in rebuttal declarations of he had been previously convicted on a prior such persons inconsistent with their testimony.-trial of the same case.- Sorrell v. State, 169 S. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cosgrove, 169 S. W. 299.
W. 999. $ 287 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the defense had 8 379 (Tex.Cr. App.) A witness may be imattempted to show in cross-examination of a peached by proof of statements in conflict with witness for the prosecution that the witness his testimony, by laying a proper foundation, was a spotter or detective, the state on redirect and by calling as witnesses the persons to examination can show that the witness was a
whom the conflicting statements were made.bonded deputy sheriff.--Clark v. State, 169 s. Cyrus v. State, 169 S. W. 679. W. $95.
& 380 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. 8 596, 8 288 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for in- commonwealth held properly permitted to prove cest, where the defense, in cross-examining the contradictory statements by witness called by it. prosecuting witness, attempted to show that -Rutland v. Commonwealth, 169 S. W. 584. her statement that the act occurred while the
$ 392 (Ark.) In a prosecution under Kirby's parties were standing and that conception resulted was unreasonable, it was proper for the who stated' on the stand that the facts therein
Dig. & 2043, for seduction affidavits of witnesses state to show on redirect examination that de- stated were true, to the effect that defendant fendant and witness bad previously had inter- told them that he would marry prosecutrix if course on numerous occasions.-Vickers v. State, he got her pregnant; that they were engaged 169 S. W. 669.
to be married if he got her that way-were com
petent for the purpose of impeachment.-Taylor (C) Privilege of Witness.
v. State, 169 S. W. 341. $ 298 (Ky.) Under Const. Ky. $ 11, and 8 392 (Tex.Civ.App.) Declarations in a petiConst. U. S. Amend. 5, an individual citizen tion not made with plaintiff's knowledge, aucannot be required to exhibit to a grand jury thority, or acquiescence, in suits against other his books and papers containing evidence in persons, are not admissible to impeach plaintiff's criminating him.-Commonwealth v. Southern testimony in the subsequent action.-Gulf, C. & Express Co., 169 S. W. 517.
S. F. Ry, Co. v. Battle, 169 S. W. 1048. $ 306 (Ky.) The privilege against self-incrimipation may not be claimed for a corporation by (E) Contradiction and Corroboration of its officers and agents, and it may be required to
Witness, produce its books and papers before a grand $ 410 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where one accused of the jury, though they contain evidence incriminat- unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor contended ing it.--Commonwealth v. Southern Express Co., that the prosecuting witness was so intoxicated 169 S. W. 517.
as to have no recollection of the transaction. $ 308 (Ky.) A person cannot determine the the prosecution may show that the witness, alcriminating nature of the contents of books re- though somewhat under the influence of intoxquired to be produced to the grand jury, but icating liquor, was not drunk.-Clark v. State, must appear in person, with the books and pa- 169 S. W. 895. pers in his possession, and tender them to the court for determination.--Commonwealth
WORDS AND PHRASES. Southern Express Co., 169 S. W. 517.
"Abide."-O'Brien v. Alford (Ark.) 169 S. W. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, 774. CONTRADICTION, AND COR. “Accessory before the fact."-Fondren v. State ROBORATION.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 169 S. W. 411. (B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
"Accomplice."-Fondren State (Tex, Cr.
App.) 169 S. W. 411. $ 337 (Ark.) In a prosecution for assault with "Account stated.”—Godfrey v. Hughes & Hall intent to rape, the state was properly allowed (Ark.) 169 S. W. 958. to ask accused on cross-examination, whether 1 “Actionable negligence."-Colyar v. Little Rock he had not been convicted of a similar offense Bottling Works (Ark.) 169 S. W. 810. to affect his credibility, under Kirby's Dig. 8 “Adequate cause.”—Lamb v. State (Tex. Cr. 3138, as amended by Laws 1905, p. 143.-Hunt App.) 169 S. W. 1158. v. State, 169 S. W. 773.
"Adopted children."-Mellville Wickham $ 337 (Ky.) Where accused takes the stand to
(Tex. Civ. App.) 169 S. W. 1123. testify in his own behalf in accordance with
“Adverse possession.-Smith v. Chapman (Ky.) Act May 1, 1886 (Gen. St. 1888, p. 548), the
169 S. W. 834. and such evidence need not be confined to a "Agent of heirs."-Doke v. Benton County Lumstate may show his reputation for immorality, “Agent.”-State v. Brewer (Ark.) 169 S. W. time before the commission of the crime.-Combs v. Commonwealth, 169 S. W. 879.
ber Co. (Ark.) 169 S. W. 327.
"Aggrieved party.”-Alexander v. Philpot (Ark.) $ 337 (Tex.Cr.App.) That accused was indict 169 S. W. 1187. ed for another offense was competent to affect “Amount in controversy."-Stroud v. Conine his credibility.-Whitfill v. State, 169 S. W. (Ark.) 169 S. W. 959. 681.
"Any article or thing whatsoever."-State v. $361 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where, in a prosecution Frank (Ark.) 169 S. W. 333. of accused as an accomplice to an abortion, "Assunied risk."-Strother v. Kansas City Millprosecutrix testified for the state that defend. ing Co. (Mo.) 169 S. W. 43.