صور الصفحة
PDF

be had on the unsupported confession.—Owens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014.

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

Q->775 (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge on alibi instructing jury to acquit upon reasonable doubt of presence of defendant at time and place of offense held good.—McAninch v. State, 179 S. W. 719. Q->778 (Ark.) On a trial for homicide, it was not error to charge in the language of Kirby's Dig. § 1765, relative to the burden of proving mitigating circumstances.—Johnson v. State, 179 S. W. 361.

G->778 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction that burden of proof is on state held usually sufficient, unless some peculiarity requires the further instruction that the burden never shifts to defendant.—Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448. Q: 780 (Tex.Cr.App.) The fact that officers went to one charged with practicing medicine unlawfully and procured him to treat them does not make them his accomplices so as to require a charge on accomplices’ testimony.—Hyroop v. State, 179 S. W. 878.

C: 780 (Tex.Cr.App.) If testimony suggested that the state's witnesses were accomplices, held, that the court should have charged the provisions of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 801, as to the corroboration of accomplices.—Bagley v. State, 179 S. W. 1167.

Q:782 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, held not error to refuse to instruct that, where the facts were susceptible of two interpretations, that of innocence must prevail.—Deshazo v. State, 179 S. W. 1012. &=792 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction in prosecution for cattle theft held sufficient on the distinction between principal and accomplice, and the necessity of acquittal if accused was the latter.McAninch v. State, 179 S.W. 719.

&=>801 (Tex.Cr.App.) Reading charge before argument held not mandatory in misdemeanor cases.--Robison v. State, 179 S. W. 1157. G->814 (Ark.) In a prosecution for assault with intent to rape, refusal to give instructions distinguishing between acts of preparation and acts constituting the beginning of the attempt to commit rape held properly refused, where not required by the issues.—Tyra v. State, 179 S. W. 167. G->814 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there were two counts charging cattle theft, one charging ownership in husband, and one in wife, charge on question of theft of cow as property of husband held good.—McAninch v. State, 179 S. W. 719. <=822 (Tex Cr.App.). Objection that charge, in prosecution for carrying pistol was contradictory cannot prevail, when charge, as a whole, was clear and could not mislead jury.-Davis v. State, 179 S.W. 702.

(H) Requests for Instructions.

Q=829 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, instruction that indictment raised no presumption of guilt held properly refused, in view of other instructions given.-Deshazo v. State, 179 S.W. 1012. In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, held not error to refuse to instruct as to reasonable doubt, where the law on such subject was covered by instructions given.-Id. In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, it was not error to refuse to instruct that words of threatening character might reduce the crime to aggravated assault, or justify an aggravated assault in view of other instructions given.

&=829 (Tex.Cr.App.) On a trial for theft, a requested instruction as to defendant's possession of the stolen property and his explanation held sufficiently presented by instructions given. —Whitfield v. State, 179 S. W. 558.

&=829 (Tex.Cr.App.). Where in a prosecution for murder the court's charge embraced every

proper question of self-defense, instructions on the same question requested by the defendant were properly refused.—Thompson v. State, 179 S. W. 561. G=829 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a charge requested by accused and covering the issue is given, other special charges requested by accused on same issue are properly refused.—Davis v. State, 179 S. W. 702. &:829 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for larceny, held, in view of the charge as to defendant's explanation of his possession of the property, that it was unnecessary to give requested special charges on that issue.—Rice v. State, 179 S. W. 876.

&=829 (Tex.Cr.App.) The refusal of requested charges covered by those given is not error.— Edwards v. State, 179 S. W. 1163. &=>829 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the court gave a proper charge on an issue, it was not necessary to give a special requested charge thereon.— Durley v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. Q->834 (Ark.) The court is not bound to give instructions exactly in the requested words, if the instruction given is correct and complete. —Sheppard v. State, 179 S. W. 168. C:834 (Ark.) A requested charge that accused's alleged confession should be received with caution being on the weight of evidence, defendant cannot complain of a modification, charging that conviction could not be had on the unsupported confession.—Owens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014.

[blocks in formation]

C=854 (Tenn.) In a capital case, it constitutes reversible error to permit the jury to go at large pending the trial, though accused consents, this depriving him of his constitutional guaranties of fair and impartial trial by jury. —Lee v. State, 179 S. W. 145. C=854 (Tenn.) Notwithstanding accused’s consent to separation of the jury, a conviction of felony cannot be upheld under Const. art. 1, § 9.—Long v. State, 179 S.W. 315. Q=866 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conduct of jury in prosecution for theft, in determining term of imprisonment by totaling the amount desired by all and dividing by their number, the result not being followed ultimately, but a different term of imprisonment being agreed unon. he'd to present no error.—Luna v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. XIII. MOTIONS FOR, NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST.

Q->922 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant failed to except to the charge in a misdemeanor trial he could not raise objection on motion for new trial.—Robison v. State, 179 S.W. 1157. <>925 (Tex.Cr.Anp.) That jurors during the trial made comments on accused's, conduct at the time held not ground for new trial, in the absence of any showing that accused was not guilty of such conduct.—Word v. State, 179 S. W. 1175. <>928 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of juror, before vote was taken, that he knew prosecuting witness would not swear another man into the penitentiary, held not to justify new trial.Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. ©=938 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for seduction motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence, held improperly overruled.-Long v. State, 179 S. W. 564.

&=945 (Tex.Cr.App.) New trial, after conviction of assault to rape a child under 15 years, will not be granted for newly discovered testimony of a physician that he found no bruises on the child.–Mays v. State, 179 S. W. 1192. <>949 (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for new trial in a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors held properly overruled as too vague and indefinite.—Alverez v. State, 179 S.W. 714. Q=954 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a motion for a new trial, appellant should specifically point out the reasons for a new trial, so as to give the court a chance to correct its own errors, if any.— Jackson v. State, 179 S. W. 711. &=956 (Tex.Cr.App.) A new trial sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence held properly refused, accused not making a sufficient showing of diligence.—Ellis v. State, 179 S. W. 1163. &=956 (Tex.Cr.App.) That a juror stated that accused would have been acquitted but for facts injected into the case as to his shooting of a third person, unaccompanied by any affidavit, held not ground for new trial.—Word V. State, 179 S. W. 1175. &:2956 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant had two days after Verdict in which to secure the affidavits of absent witnesses on motion for new trial, it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse the continuance, where such affidavits # not produced.—May v. State, 179 S. W.

4 O. &=957 (Tex.Cr.App.) A conviction cannot be impeached by affidavits of the jury.—Chapman v. State, 179 S. W. 570.

XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL COMMITMENT.

&=>982 (Tex.Cr.App.) The state on cross-examination of accused filing plea for suspension of sentence may show that he had been arrested for various crimes.—Backus V. State. 179 S. W. 1166.

XV. APPEAT, ATWT, ERROR, AND CERTIORAR.I.

(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, Right of Review.

<>1023 (Tex.Cr.App.) Pronouncement of sentence by the judge in vacation is not authorized, so that sentence so pronounced is not a final judgment on which an appeal may be rested.Dodd v. State, 179 S. W. 564. Q+ 1024 (Ky.) The commonwealth can appeal in criminal cases under Cr. Code Prac. § 337, only from decisions of the court adverse to it.— Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S.W. 844. &= 1026 (Ky.) Defendant has an appeal under Cr. Code Prac. §§ 335, 337, from final judgment of conviction, but he cannot appeal before judgment and afterwards also, or prosecute a crossappeal upon an appeal by the commonwealth.— Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844.

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

&= 1028 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court of criminal appeals can pass only upon such questions as are properly raised in the trial court.—Davis V. State, 179 S. W. 702. &= 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statutory provision as to objections to charge and failure to charge held one the Legislature had a right to enact, and one which the courts can neither ignore nor emasculate.—Vinson v. State, 179 S. W. 574. Under Code Cr. Proc. art. 743, defendant, in the absence of objection or request for special charge, cannot complain of court's failure to e'se as to contention not made at the trial. G: 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in refusing charges held not shown, where transcript did not show exception to charge and request for sub

and

mission of special charges before the charge Was read.—Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161. Q= 1043 (Ark.) Where erroneous instruction as to disregarding testimony of witness testifying falsely to any material fact was part of a long instruction, and was not specifically called to the attention of the trial judge, held, that there was no error.—Johnson v. State, 179 S. W. 361. <= 1051 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, the court on appeal will not consider question of venue not raised in the case and no bill of exception taken thereto.-Park V. State, 179 S. W. 1152. <= 1054 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court on appeal cannot review the admission of evidence, alleged as grounds for a new trial, to which no exceptions were preserved on the trial below.Munoz v. State, 179 S. W. 566. Q= 1056 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where no exceptions were reserved to the court's charge when submitted to defendant's counsel for inspection, the refusal of special charges requested by defend# was proper.—Galvan v. State, 179 S. W. 4 O.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Q: 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there is neither statement of facts nor bill of exceptions, and the Only ground of motion for new trial Was that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, the ruling thereon cannot be reviewed.— Lockhart v. State, 179 S. W. 556. G=> 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record on appeal contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions, the ruling on a motion for new trial is not reviewable on appeal.—Lawson v. State, 179 S. W. 557. C>1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Complaints in the motion for new trial of rulings on evidence, as to which no bills of exceptions appear in the record, cannot be considered on appeal.—IRea v.

State, 179 S. W. 706.

&= 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) The impropriety of overruling a motion for continuance cannot be reviewed without a bill of exceptions.—Smith V. State, 179 S. W. 1165.

Q=> 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed in absence of statement of facts or bill of exceptions.—Gragara v. State, 179 S. W. 1185.

G: 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Insufficiency of the evidence, asserted as ground for a new trial, held not reviewable, in the absence of a bill of exceptions or statement of facts.—Ridgeway V. State, 179 S.W. 1185. |

C> 1091 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions showing merely the substance of evidence objected to, but failing to show when the objections were made or what the other evidence on the subject was, is insufficient under. White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. §§ 857, 1123.—Tinker v. State, 179 S. W. 572. A bill of exceptions to the conduct of a prosecuting attorney which states only appellant's conclusions, and not facts, does not show reVersible error.—Id. $: 1091 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, a bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to direct acquittal on ground that venue had not been proven presents no question. —Fondren v. State, 179 S.W. 1170. &= 1092 (Ark.) Where accused failed to file his bill of exceptions within the time granted therefor, no question on the admission of evidence, or the instructions is presented on appeal.-Riley v. State, 179 S. W. 661. Q: 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the bills of exceptions were filed after adjournment of court without an order for that purpose, such papers will not be considered.—Van Dyke V. State, 179 S.W. 111. Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, does not authorize statement of facts and bills of exceptions to be filed after adjournment of court, whether there was an order entered to that effect or not.—Id. Where an order of the trial court authorizing the filing of bills of exceptions after adjournment was not carried forward into the minutes of the court, it does not authorize filing after adjournment.—Id. &: 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions, approved and filed about 75 days after the term of court at which accused was tried had adjourned, cannot be considered.—Martin v. State, 179 S. W. 121. C> 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions, filed after adjournment, without an order entered for the purpose, will not be considered.—Luna V. State, 179 S. W. 1152. Q: 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Allowance of bill of exceptions to remarks by county attorney not excepted to or called to the court's attention until the motion for a new trial, and denied by the county attorney to have been made, held properly refused.—Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161.

C= 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exception cannot be considered where the trial court refused expressly to approve them.—Backus v. State, 179 S.W. 1166. ! &= 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal from 3 county court cannot consider bills of exception *filed after adjournment of the term, in absence of order allowing filing thereof.—Williams v. State, 179 S.W. 1167.

&= 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions, filed more than 20 days after adjournment of court, held not to be considered.—Ridgeway v. State, 179 S. W. 1185.

G> 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) A so-called “Appellant's Exceptions to the Charge of the Court,” not verified by the trial judge, or shown to have been presented to him for his action before the trial was concluded, cannot be considered.— Grisham v. State, 179 S. W. 1186.

&= 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where term of court adjourned on May 15th, bills of exceptions filed July 29th and 30th held to be stricken and not considered.—Green v. State, 179 S. W. 1191.

&= 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) Without statement of facts, the grounds of a motion for new trial relating to the insufficiency of the evidence, to the improper conduct of counsel, and to the erroneous admission of evidence, cannot be reviewed. —Dixon v. State, 179 S. W. 561.

&=> 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in refusing special charges in criminal case held not reviewa

ble, in absence of a statement of facts.—Dorris v. State, 179 S.W. 718.

<=1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction cannot be considered without a statement of facts.—Smith V. State, 179 S.W. 1165.

C: 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) The contention of appellant that evidence fails to support the conviction cannot be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.—Augustine v. State, 179 S. W. 1185.

&= 1098 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, made up of questions and answers, held not to £onsiderel-Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W.

<>1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) After conviction for a misdemeanor, a statement of facts not filed until 81 days after adjournment of the county #" will be stricken.—Celo v. State, 179 S. W.

G: 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the statement of facts was filed after adjournment of court without an order for that purpose, such papers will not be considered.—Wan Dyke v. State, 179 S. W. 111. Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, does not authorize statements of fact to be filed after adjournment of court, whether there was an order entered to that effect or not.—Id. Where an order of the trial court authorizing the filing of statement of facts after adjournment was not carried forward into the minutes of the court, it does not authorize filing after adjournment.—Id.

C> 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, approved and filed about 75 days after the term of court at which accused was tried had adjourned, cannot be considered.—Martin v. State, 179 S. W. 121. C> 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the statement of facts fails to show its presentment or approval below, it cannot be considered.—Dorris v. State, 179 S.W. 718. © 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, filed after adjournment, without an order entered for the purpose, will not be considered.-Luna v. State, 179 S. W. 1152.

C: 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Alleged newly discovcred evidence and misconduct of jury and county attorney as to which evidence was heard on motion for new trial held not reviewable without a statement of facts filed during term time. –Taylor v. State, 179 S.W. 1161.

&= 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal from county court cannot consider statement of facts filed after adjournment of the term, in absence of order allowing filing thereof.—Williams v. State, 179 S. W. 1167.

Q: 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts filed within 90 days after sentence pronounced at term subsequent to that at which accused Was convicted held filed in time.—Wilburton v. State, 179 S.W. 1169.

<> 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, filed more than 20 days after adjournment of court, held not to be considered.—Ridgeway V. State, 179 S.W. 1185.

Q= | 102 (Tex.Cr.App.). Where there was no order in the record authorizing a statement of facts to be filed after adjournment of county court, a purported statement of facts must be stricken.—McGee v. State, 179 S. W. 1165.

<> 1102 (Tex.Cr.App.) A statement of facts filed more than 20 days after the adjournment of the court will be stricken on motion.-Lawson v. State, 179 S. W. 1186.

&= 1102 (Tex.Cr.Anp.) Where term of court ad: journed on May 15th, statement of facts filed July 29th held to be stricken.—Green v. State, 179 S. W. 1191.

&=1111 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a bill of exceptions as qualified by the court and a bystander's bill are filed, the court must consider the ques

| tions raised by bystander's bill.—Word v. State, C: | | |4 (Tex.Cr.App.) In absence of bills of exception, complaints as to charge, and requests for special charges, the only question on appeal from a conviction of crime was the sufficiency of the evidence.—Looper V. State, 179

179 S. W. 1175.

&= | | 1.4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record on appeal contains no statement of facts, bill of exceptions, or motion for new trial, no question is presented which can be reviewed.—Garza v. State, 179 S. W. 556. C: 1119 (Tex.Cr.App.) Prosecuting attorney’s allusion to the negro race in harsh and bitter terms held not to require a reversal, in the absence of a proper statement of facts.—Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448. Q: 1 I 19 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions, complaining of a remark of the state's attorney, held not to present reversible error.—Park V. State, 179 S. W. 1152. C= | 120 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record fails to include questions which the court rules call for opinions of witnesses, and to which ruling the defendant excepts, the ruling must be taken as correct, and no question is presented for review.—Rea v. State, 179 S. W. 706. Q-> 1 120 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions, complaining of the refusal to strike out the testimony of a witness, held not to present reversible error, where the testimony of the witness was not shown.—Park v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. C: 1 121 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court, on appeal from a conviction of violating the local option law, in the absence of evidence on the point cannot consider whether the option election # invalid.—Van Dyke v. State, 179 S. W.

Q: 121 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's bill of exceptions to the denial of a directed acquittal on the ground that venue was not shown, presents no question for review, where the bill does not contain the evidence on that point.—Thompson v. State, 179 S. W. 561. &= | 124 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there was no bill of exceptions or statement of facts or verification of the testimony set out in motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, held that nothing was presented for review.— Besenta v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. C: I 128 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal cannot consider an ex parte affidavit as to disqualification of a juror for bias, made after the term at which the verdict was rendered, but is confined to matters which are a part of the record in the trial court.—Rea v. State, 179 S.W. 706. &: I 128 (Tex.Cr.App.) Affidavit of juror, that jury had considered the fact that defendant did not testify, which was not attached to nor made a portion of nor an exhibit to the motion for new trial, cannot be considered.—Ornelas V. State, 179 S.W. 717.

[blocks in formation]

will be denied where the statement is in no way verified.—Robertson v. State, 179 S.W. 106.

(G) Review.

&: I 134 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the only question properly presented by the motion for new trial was the alleged insufficiency of the evidence and the only bill of exceptions was to the overruling of the motion, the sole question for review is the insufficiency of the evidence.— Grubbs v. State, 179 S. W. 718. Q= 1134 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where, no , exceptions were reserved to the introduction of any testiAmony, nor to the charge, and no special charge was requested, the only question presented for review was the sufficiency of the testimony.— Richardson v. State, 179 S. W. 1186. G-> 1 137 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the court, on defendant's request, charges that his failure to testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, defendant cannot show error therein.—Munoz v. State, 179 S. W. 566.

[blocks in formation]

Š-> 159 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a direct conflict in the testimony has been decided adversely to the accused, the judgment will not ordinarily be reversed.—Grant V. State, 179 S. W. 871. G= | 159 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, whether defendant or the witnesses for the state were to be believed was a matter for the jury and the trial court alone.—Taylor V. State, 179 S. W. 1161. &: I 159 (Tex.Cr.App.) A conviction on conflicting testimony and sustained by testimony will not be disturbed.—Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. C: 1163 (Ark.) Admission of question on crossexamination of one jointly indicted with accused as to whether his brother had not been charged with killing and burning a woman held £ely prejudicial.—Counts v. State, 179

&: I 166 (Tex.Cr.App.) The denial of a continuance because of the absence of witnesses whose presence Was Secured presents no error.—Galvan v. State, 179 S. W. 875.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

©= | 166!/2 (Tex.Cr.App.) Remark of the court in ruling on evidence held not reversible error, where the court, at the request of accused, directed the jury not to consider the question or answer.—Word v. State, 179 S. W. 1175. &=> 1 169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Although it is error to admit oral evidence that a certain person insured burned property, and at the same time exclude the policy of insurance, in showing ownership, the error is harmless, where other evidence showed ownership.—Tinker v. State, 179 S. W. 572.

C> | 169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's exception to a ruling admitting evidence in his favor can-" not be considered on appeal.—Rea V. State, 179 S. W. 706. <> | 169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of testimony based on what witness was told by G. held not reversible error, where G. testified to the same facts without contradiction.—Southall v. State, 179 S.W. 872. &= | 169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of evidence of propositions of defendant in seduction to witness was harmless, where it was stricken out, and the jury instructed to disregard it; the jury having assessed the lowest punishment.— McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. Where proper objection was not made till after witness had testified to part of the contents of a letter, and was then sustained, there was no error; the court having previously instructed that, under such circumstances, testimony should not be considered.—Id. Erroneous admission of testimony is not ground for reversal; the same fact having been testified to by another, without objection.—Id. Q: 1170 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where, on trial for cattle theft, a state's witness confessed that he was a thief and had aided in the theft, exclusion of testimony on cross-examination of his attempt to get a third person to aid in stealing cattle held not prejudicial, where he had also testified to such fact on the direct.—Durley v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. &= 1 170/2 (Tex.Cr.App.) That the court permitted the state to disqualify accused's witness under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 791, 792, on the erroneous theory that the inquiry affected the credibility of the witness and not because he was indicted for the same offense, held not prejudicial.—Fondren v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. Q: 1171 (Tex.Cr.App.) Remarks of counsel for state in prosecution for murder held improper, and the judge's refusal to warn the jury against '' I'udicial error.—Brod v. State, 179 S.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

&=>23 (Tex.Civ.App.) Salary of vaudeville troupe as element of damage for breach of contract to furnish electricity for theater building held not within contemplation of parties; it being understood that the business to be conducted was that of a moving picture show. I'' of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S.W.

Damages not within the contemplation of parties held not recoverable, though defendant's representative had notice of the facts giving rise to such damages before the breach of the contract.—Id. Q=24 (Mo..App.) In action for personal injury, held, that the jury might take into account such future pain of body and mind, if any, as in all reasonable probability plaintiff would suffer as a direct result of his injury.-Clark v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 795. <>32 (Ky.) Future suffering held element of damages in personal injury case regardless whether permanent impairment of earning power was pleaded or proved.—Moses v. Proctor Coal Co., 179 S. W. 1043. <>40 (Mo..App.) In an action for damages for the termination of an insurance agency, expected profits may be recovered, where there is actual data upon which a reasonable estimate thereof may be based.—United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ridge, 179 S.W. 791.

(B) Aggravation, Mitigation, and Reduction of Loss. &=62 (Ark.) Plaintiffs' action for injury to a supply pool is not defeated by failure to restore it before selling the property.—Ross &

« السابقةمتابعة »