231 (Mo.App.) A suit to appoint a receiver to take over the assets of a corporation, amounting to $60,000, so as to secure payment of plaintiff's claim, held to involve a right involving a sum in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court See Evidence, 588; Witnesses, 311-396. of Appeals.-Walker v. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Co. of New Jersey, 179 S. W. 948.

(A) Courts of Same State, and Transfer S. W. 818. of Causes.

487 (Mo.App.) Where the sum involved appears to be in excess of its jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals should on its own motion transfer the cause to the Supreme Court.-Walker v. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Co. of New Jersey, 179 S. W. 948.

meanors exclusive of justices of the peace, held ["knucks" at the same time; the question of not invalid under Const. art. 7, § 43, authoriz- unlawful carrying not being in issue.-Chisom ing such courts with "jurisdiction concurrent v. State, 179 S. W. 103. with justices of the peace."-Id.

Under Const. art. 7, § 43, held, that the Legislature may vest jurisdiction in municipal courts beyond the geographical limits of the municipalities.-Id.

87 (Ark.) Justices of the peace held to have no vested right to fees and emoluments of their office, and Laws 1915, p. 340, establishing municipal courts, is not void as impairing vested rights.-State v. Woodruff, 179 S. W. 813.

V. VENUE.

(B) Change of Venue.

200 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Pen. Code 1911, arts. 1317, 1318, theft committed in the same transaction as a burglary is separate from the burglary, and accused may be convicted of both. -Park v. State, 179 S. W. 1152.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AF-
FIDAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMI-
NATION, COMMITMENT, AND
SUMMARY TRIAL.

206 (Ark.) Under Const. art. 7, §§ 40, 43, Laws 1915, p. 340, held not unconstitutional because of provision vesting municipal courts with jurisdiction to sit as examining courts.-State v. Woodruff, 179 S. W. 813.

119 (Ark.) One convicted of crime securing trial of sanity issue on writ of error coram nobis after sentence held entitled to change 260 (Tex.Cr.App.) A judgment of conviction of venue as in other cases.-Dewein v. State, in justice court held a final judgment, warrant179 S. W. 346. ing appeal to and trial de novo in the county court.-Golson v. State, 179 S. W. 560.

121 (Ark.) Where supporting witnesses to affidavit for change of venue in criminal case are qualified under Kirby's Dig. § 2318, the court has no discretion, and must grant the change.-Dewein v. State, 179 S. W. 346.

134 (Ark.) Evidence held to support finding that supporting witnesses to an affidavit for change of venue were not credible for want of knowledge.-Dewein v. State, 179 S. W. 346.

134 (Tex.Cr.App.) It is not error to allow time to file a contest to defendant's motion for a change of venue, nor to extend the time for verification when the contest is not at first sworn to.-Thompson v. State, 179 S. W. 561.

A change of venue was properly denied where only one of defendant's witnesses swore he could not get a fair trial, while all the witnesses for the state, resisting the change, swore that he could.-Id.

330 (Tex.Cr.App.) Burden of proof held sometimes on defendant, but usually with reference to special matters, like nonage and insanity, and never until the state has overcome the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.-Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448.

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

368 (Tex.Cr.App.) On a trial for assault with intent to murder, evidence that, while defendant and another were assaulting the prosecuting witness, a third person told them not to do it, was admissible as res gestæ.-Freeman v. State, 179 S. W. 1157.

135 (Ark.) For sole purpose of ascertaining their credibility, the court may examine sup-368 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of acts of deporting witnesses to affidavit for change of ven- fendant's father immediately after the shooting ue as to their means of knowledge and the prob- by defendant, held improperly admitted as part ability of petitioner having fair trial.-Dewein of the res geste.-Brod v. State, 179 S. W. 1189. v. State, 179 S. W. 346. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Ac

cused.

137 (Ark.) Statement of court on motion for change of venue that supporting witnesses to affidavit were reputable citizens, etc., held 369 (Ark.) In prosecution prosecution for robbery, not finding that they were "credible," within where defendant set up an alibi, evidence as Kirby's Dig. § 2318.-Dewein v. State, 179 S. to his presence and participation in other robberies at the same time and locality held admisCredibility of supporting witnesses to affi-sible.-Nash v. State, 179 S. W. 159. davit for change of venue is a question largely within the discretion of the trial court.-Id. VI. LIMITATION OF PROSECUTIONS.

W. 346.

Guilt of one crime cannot be proved as a circumstance from which to infer guilt of another, where not offered to show motive, intent, or design.-Id.

147 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for vio-369 (Ark.) Evidence of the commission of lating the prohibition law, there could be a one offense is not admissible to establish the conviction only for an offense committed with- guilt of defendant, charged with an entirely in two years prior to the filing of the indict-independent crime.-Miller v. State, 179 S. W. ment. Sloan v. State, 179 S. W. 111. 1001.

369 (Ky.) Evidence of different offenses, VII. FORMER JEOPARDY. though ordinarily incompetent, held admissible 170 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where an information in to establish identity, guilty knowledge, intent, a former complaint charged an impossible date, or motive, or where they cannot be separated, or a conviction could not be had under it, so that were perpetrated to conceal the crime on trial. an acquittal thereunder was not available as a-Richardson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 458. plea of former acquittal.-Spicer v. State, 179371 (Ark.) Where a sheriff and his deputy S. W. 712. had searched two persons, and were both threatened by them, on a charge of burning the barn of the sheriff the following night evidence was admissible that the deputy's fence and corntops were burned the same night.-Shuffield v. State, 179 S. W. 650.

185 (Ark.) Trial under defective indictment resulting in discharge of jury for failure to agree, under Kirby's Dig. § 2396, held not to bar a new trial under a valid indictment.Carmen v. State, 179 S. W. 183.

1932 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant tried for murder was acquitted by a conviction of manslaughter, the issue of murder could not be submitted in another trial, though the court, in submitting manslaughter, might charge as to what constituted murder.-Vollintine v. State, 179 S. W. 108.

200 (Tex.Cr.App.) Acquittal on a charge of carrying "knucks" is immaterial, on the charge of having committed an assault with

371 (Ky.) In a prosecution for embezzlement, where defendant relies upon the absence of intent fraudulently to convert, or claims that his act was the result of oversight, accident, or mistake, evidence of other acts of embezzlement is admissible to show guilty knowledge.-Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844.

In prosecution for crime, the commission by defendant of other criminal acts of the same nature cannot be considered as substantive tes

timony of defendant's guilt, but only as indicating motive and intent.-Id.

denied the charge, if false.-Wilson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 237.

372 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for 413 (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusing to allow deswindling, held proper to prove other similar fendant in seduction to show his prior statetransactions had about the same time.-Arnoldments that he was to marry another than prosev. State, 179 S. W. 1183.

374 (Ark.) On a criminal prosecution, other offenses, tending to show the intent or motive, cannot be established by hearsay.-Shuffield v. State, 179 S. W. 650.

cutrix held not error, where they were not communicated to prosecutrix.-McDonald State, 179 S. W. 880.

418 (Tex.Cr.App.) Remark to assaulted party before the assault and his reply held admissible, where it appeared that defendant was near enough that the assaulted party heard a remark by him or one of his companions.Southall v. State, 179 S. W. 872.

376 (Ark.) The prosecution cannot introduce evidence of the bad character of accused as a cirumstance from which the jury might infer guilt, until the accused has introduced evidence of his good character.-Shuffield v. State, 179419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) On trial for asS. W. 650.

378 (Ark.) Proof of pleading guilty to stealing chickens is not admissible to rebut evidence of the good character of one accused of arson.Shuffield v. State, 179 S. W. 650.

380 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused put his good character as a peaceable citizen in issue, testimony that it had been reported some 30 years before that he killed a man in another state and was a member of a gang of outlaws is too remote to be considered.-Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 113.

sault, accused's testimony that he made the assault because he was told by his wife and others that the prosecuting witness had raped her held erroneously excluded; the hearsay rule not applying.-Dieter v. State, 179 S. W. 557.

419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) Assaulted party held improperly permitted to testify that his assailant beat him with a fence rail; his knowledge having been acquired from G., who found the rail with blood on it.-Southall v. State,

179 S. W. 872.

(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators and Codefendants.

(D) Materiality and Competency in General. 396 (Mo.) In a prosecution for embezzle-422 (Tex.Cr.App.) On trial for assault, rement by a bank cashier, where evidence had been mark of one of four boys who were together admitted showing a general shortage in the as- that they would get the prosecuting witness sets of the bank, testimony by accused tending held admissible against one of them.-Southall to explain the shortage was improperly exclud- v. State, 179 S. W. 872. ed.-State v. Wilcox, 179 S. W. 479.

423 (Ark.) Where the evidence made a ques396 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for keep- tion for the jury as to a conspiracy between deing house for prostitution, where defendant tes- fendant and H., evidence of H.'s possession of tified that, upon arrest for vagrancy, she had a pistol held competent either on direct or cross been mistreated and induced to plead guilty examination.-Johnson v. State, 179 S. W. 361. through misrepresentations, etc., it was proper 423 (Tex.Cr.App.). On trial of defendant as in rebuttal to permit police officers to explain principal in assault committed by W., evidence the whole matter.-Jackson v. State, 179 S. W. as to remark by W. regarding his intention to whip the prosecuting witness, just prior to the assault, held admissible.-Southall v. State, 179

711.

(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra

tive Evidence.

S. W. 872.

If defendant was principal in assault by W., 398 (Tex.Cr.App.) Witness, having lost a evidence as to what W. did to the assaulted letter to her, could testify to its contents.-Mc-party after he ran away, pursued by W., held Donald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. admissible.-Id.

400 (Tex.Cr.App.) Parol evidence of the con-424 (Ark.) Statement of one jointly indicted tents of a circular was properly rejected, where for arson with defendant held erroneously adthe circular itself could be put in evidence.- mitted because any conspiracy had been conHyroop v. State, 179 S. W. 878. summated when it was made.-Counts v. State, 179 S. W. 662.

404 (Ark.) Stolen knife held not sufficiently identified to warrant its admission in evidence in a prosecution for burglary.-Oliver v. State, 179 S. W. 366.

(F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hearsay.

406 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statements of defendant and of another party, made while the police officer was making an investigation, held not inficer was making an investigation, held not inadmissible as male while defendant was under arrest.-Rice v. State, 179 S. W. 876.

424 (Ky.) Letter by one defendant, written after commission of crime and threatening to kill the jailer, held not admissible upon joint trial.-Wilson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 237.

427 (Tex.Cr.App.) That defendant and other companions of W. followed him and party assaulted by him, and remarked that W. ought to beat such person's head off, held to strongly tend to show that defendant was a principal.Southall v. State, 179 S. W. 872.

406 (Tex.Cr.App.) On defendant's admission that a circular was one used by him in adver- (H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion tising his business as a masseur, the circular of Parol Evidence Thereby. was properly admitted in evidence to show the 447 (Tex.Cr.App.) Written employment conpurpose for which he held himself out.-Hy-tract held not to merge previous representaroop v. State, 179 S. W. 878. tions of accused so as to prevent their proof by state in prosecution for swindling.-Arnold v. State, 179 S. W. 1183.

406 (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of officer as to searching deceased's rooms for money, and defendant's statements held admissible, even though defendant was under arrest; the money having been found by reason of her statements. -Hand v. State, 179 S. W. 1155.

407 (Ky.) Statement made by one to another jointly accused with him of murder, charging him with firing the shot, held competent against person so accused, where the circumstances were such that he would naturally have

(I) Opinion Evidence.

448 (Ky.) In prosecution of sheriff for embezzlement, evidence of a county attorney that he had in the exercise of his official functions determined that the tax which defendant was accused of embezzling had never been certified to him for collection was inadmissible as opinion.-Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844.

448 (Tex.Cr.App.) It was not error to allow a city detective to testify that the persons who had signed confession by defendant as witnesses did not hold any official position in the city or county.-Jernigan v. State, 179 S. W. 1187.

452 (Ark.) Opinion of nonexpert witness on sanity held only admissible upon showing association with subject, opportunity for observation, and statement of facts upon which opinion is based.-Dewein v. State, 179 S. W. 346.

competent to testify that it was made voluntarily after warning in accordance with Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 810.-Jernigan v. State, 179 S. W. 1187.

534 (Ky.) Where accused confessed to a witness the commission of two breakings, the finding of goods stolen at each time held provable, as corroborative.-Richardson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 458.

535 (Tex.Cr.App.) While the confession of an accused may be used where the corpus delicti is established, yet it is inadmissible to establish the corpus delicti.-Brice v. State, 179 S. W. 1178.

(M) Weight and Sufficiency.

476 (Tex. Cr.App.) Opinion evidence by a doctor, who qualified as an expert witness, as to the cause of the injuries inflicted, held properly admitted.-Chisom v. State, 179 S. W. 103. 478 (Tex.Cr.App.) Chemist who analysed deceased's stomach held competent to express 561 (Ky.) In order to convict, the jury an opinion as to how much strychnine sulphate must have no reasonable doubt of defendant's would cause a man's death.-Hand v. State, guilt.-Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 179 S. W. 1155. 844.

570 (Ark.) Evidence on the issue of sanity held sufficient to support verdict of sanity.Dewein v. State, 179 S. W. 346.

XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTIN-
UANCE.

577 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's failure to insist on a ruling on his plea of former acquittal and his motion to postpone and his announcement of immediate readiness for trial held a waiver of his right to the two days allowed to prepare for trial.-Spicer v. State, 179 S. W. 712.

507 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 498, a female solicited to illicit sexual intercourse, who consents without persuasion, is not an accomplice of the solicitor making requisite corroboration of her testimony for 586 (Ark.) The trial court has a large disconviction thereon.-Denman v. State, 179 S. cretion in granting or refusing continuances.Carmen v. State, 179 S. W. 183.

W. 120.

continuance

507 (Tex.Cr.App.) Sheriff and person em-589 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial of ployed by him to detect bootleggers, and who, was not erroneous, where accused was not depursuant thereto, purchased whisky from de- prived of any testimony.-Word v. State, 179 fendant, held not accomplices in view of Pen. S. W. 1175. Code 1911, art. 602.-Bagley v. State, 179 S.

W. 1167.

508 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a theft is established, a conviction may be had on accomplice testimony on proof of facts and circumstances tending to connect accused with the offense.Edwards v. State, 179 S. W. 1163.

595 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a criminal prosecution, it was not error to refuse a continuance, where the affidavit of the absent witness stated that he had seen the prosecuting witness intoxicated at about the time of the offense; fact of the witness' intoxication not rendering him incompetent.-Fletcher v. State, 179 S. W. 879.

508 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 791, 792, making codefendants in-595 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial of continuance competent witnesses for each other, accused because of absence of witnesses who would have may not complain that the state proved that a testified to defendant's whereabouts at a differwitness called by him was indicted for the same ent time than the times when sales of liquor offense.-Fondren v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. were claimed to have been made held not error.-Bagley v. State, 179 S. W. 1167.

510 (Ky.) Statement made by one to another jointly indicted for murder with him, charging latter with firing the shot, and testified to by third person, who overheard same, held not accomplice testimony, within Cr. Code Prac. § 241, requiring corroboration.-Wilson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 237.

for

595 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution abandonment after seduction and marriage, testimony of a witness to the chastity of prosecutrix held material, so that absence of the witness could be ground for continuance.-Coleman v. State, 179 S. W. 1172.

511 (Ark.) Unexplained possession of a por-596 (Ark.) The denial of a continuance on tion of property recently stolen may be consid- the ground of an absent witness whose testiered in corroboration of testimony of accom- mony would be merely cumulative is not an plices in a prosecution for grand larceny, al-abuse of discretion.-Owens v. State, 179 S. though the value of the property so found does not exceed $10.-White v. State, 179 S. W.

160.

W. 1014.

596 (Tex.Cr.App.) The rule against cumulative evidence does not apply to a first application for a continuance, nor is it applied with strictness where the witnesses present are nearly related to accused.-Chapman v. State, 179 S.

W. 570.

511 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for cattle theft, evidence of corroboration held suffi-596 (Tex.Cr.App.) A continuance sought to cient to connect defendant with the offense and secure a witness whose testimony can only be to justify conviction on an accomplice's testi- available to impeach a state's witness should be denied.-Galvan v. State, 179 S. W. 875. mony.-Edwards v. State, 179 S. W. 1163.

(K) Confessions.

597 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for bigamy, held, that accused's first application for a continuance on account of absent witnesses should have been granted, as he could have procured evidence which would have showed he believed he was divorced.-Chapman v. State, 179 S. W. 570.

517 (Ky.) Where accused confessed to a witness the commission of two breakings, for one of which he was being tried, the entire confession held provable to establish his identity.Richardson v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. 458. 531 (Tex.Cr.App.) A district attorney to 598 (Mo.App.) Refusal to grant a continu

held error where there was not sufficient time in which to obtain the witness without continuance.-State v. Flick, 179 S. W. 768.

598 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, held, that there was no error in refusing a continuance on the ground of surprise; no diligence being shown. -Grant v. State, 179 S. W. 871.

dressed and that he had a lantern held permissible.-Vinson v. State, 179 S. W. 574.

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.

720 (Ark.) Prosecuting attorney's statement that, no doubt, defendant was given a check by his father and advised that other climes would be more healthful for him after committing a homicide, held justified by the evidence.-Yancey v. State, 179 S. W. 352.

598 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial for want of diligence of a continuance sought for absence of witness who would give material testimony, 720 (Ark.) Where accused and another who held error.-Coleman v. State, 179 S. W. 1172. 598 (Tex.Cr.App.) A defendant indicted for seduction in November, 1913, whose trial was set for May, 1915, held not to have exercised such diligence in obtaining the presence of a witness as to make it error to refuse a continuance.-May v. State, 179 S. W. 1176.

were traced from the place of the killing to the drug store, where they were found the next morning, asserted that they spent the night together, argument by the prosecutor that such other person participated in the crime is warranted.-Owens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014.

720 (Tex.Cr.App.) Prosecuting attorneys in their argument should confine themselves to legitimate deductions from the facts as they apply to the law of the case.-Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448.

608 (Ark.) Where the showing on a motion for postponement did not clearly disclose the whereabouts of the absent witness, or establish that his attendance could be procured later, the denial was not an abuse of discretion.-722 (Ark.) In prosecution for grand larOwens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014. ceny, district attorney's closing argument, imputing a criminal intent to defendant in over insuring his house, and tending to counteract proof of his good character, held reversible error.-Miller v. State, 179 S. W. 1001.

608 (Tex.Cr.App.) It was not error to refuse a continuance in a prosecution for seduction, where defendant failed to produce any affidavits that the absent witnesses would testify as stated in his motion.-May v. State, 179 S.

W. 1176.

636 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 646, absence of defendant, who was locked in jail, while counsel was arguing motion for instructed verdict, held to require a reversal.-Brooks v. State, 179 S. W. 447.

(C) Reception of Evidence. 673 (Ky.) Where evidence of a different breaking was admitted, held, that court should have admonished jury that it could be considered only on the questions of motive and identity.-Richardson v. Commonwealth, 179 S.

W. 458.

673 (Ky.) In prosecution of sheriff for embezzling a collected tax, the court, on admission of evidence of the clerk of the county court that defendant failed to report collections, should admonish the jury that such evidence was only to show intent.-Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844.

724 (Tenn.) Statements of the prosecuting attorney that if one ran over and killed a child of his he would shoot him, held improper.Lauterbach v. State, 179 S. W. 130.

728 (Ark.) That the prosecuting attorney made statements as to proof he would adduce, but on trial was unable to furnish it, is not ground for reversal, where the statements were in good faith, and accused requested no instructions that the jury should not consider such statements.-Owens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014.

730 (Mo.) That counsel expressly advised the jury not to read the instructions, but to return a verdict forthwith, was cured by the direction of the court that the jury pay no attention thereto.-State v. Wilcox, 179 S. W. 479.

730 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant had not put his character in issue, remark of county attorney, that he did not know whether defendant had been previously charged with an offense, presented no error where objection was sustained with an instruction not to consider it. -Rice v. State, 179 S. W. 876.

730 (Tex.Cr.App.) Action of state's attorney, in asking accused if he had not been convicted of crime, held not reversible, where the court sustained an objection to the question and directed the jury not to consider it.-Park v. State, 179 S. W. 1152.

(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen

eral.

676 (Ark.) The court did not abuse its dis-737 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under the evidence and cretion in limiting cumulative testimony, by defendant's admission at the time stolen propexcluding the testimony of 10 witnesses upon erty was taken from his person, held, that there certain facts, where there was nothing to show was no question of venue in the case.-Whitfield that their testimony was of special value or v. State, 179 S. W. 558. weight, and 9 witnesses had already testified upon the same facts.-Sheppard v. State, 179 S. W. 168.

741 (Ark.) Whether form of insanity is such as to preclude discovery by a nonexpert held question of fact for the jury on the issue of defendant's sanity at the trial for the crime.Dewein v. State, 179 S. W. 346.

~676 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a given fact is sufficiently shown by a number of witnesses, it is not error to exclude testimony of another witness which is merely cumulative.-Tinker 762 (Tex.Cr.App.) An instruction that apv. State, 179 S. W. 572. pellant "stands charged by indictment with the 678 (Ky.) Commonwealth held to have elect-offense of the murder of S. G., alleged to have ed to try accused for one of two breakings, where its first witness testified as to accused's possession of property stolen at the time of such breaking.-Richardson v. Commonwealth, 179 S.

W. 458.

683 (Tex.Cr.App.) In rebuttal of testimony of witness, who claimed that he, and not accused, assaulted the prosecuting witness, testimony of prosecuting witness as to how he was

been committed by him," does not suggest to the jury the opinion of the court that the defendant was guilty.-Munoz v. State, 179 S. W. 566.

763, 764 (Ark.) A charge that accused's alleged confession should be received with caution is on the weight of the evidence, and he cannot complain of a modification, where the jury were informed that conviction could not