« السابقةمتابعة »
&= 175 (Mo..App.) Defendant in unlawful detainer held not rendered competent to testify to conversation wherein plaintiffs' deceased predecessor had verbally rented the premises either to him or to such predecessor's lessee, because decedent's attorney, still living and testifying for plaintiff, was present at the conference.McCracken v. Schuster, 179 S.W. 757. Defendant could testify where the plaintiffs' deceased predecessor's evidence in another Suit as to the conversation as to which defendant testified was preserved and introduced at the trial, though defendant himself introduced the preserved evidence.—Id.
(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications.
&= 198 (Ky.) While an attorney cannot testify concerning communications between himself and his client, an attorney who is a mining expert is competent, in an action involving breach of a mining contract, to testify as to the number of tons of coal in an acre.—Trosper Coal Co. v. Rader, 179 S. W. 1023. Q:208 (Mo..App.) In action against street railroad for personal injury, refusal to allow defendant's regular physician, who examined plaintiff's injury while attempting to settle her claim, to disclose his knowledge of such injury, held proper.—Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W. 735. C>219 (Mo..App.) Plaintiff, who offered her own physician to testify to the results of an examination, and who afterwards permitted examination by another physician, held to have have waived her right to exclude testimony of latter physician, as privileged under Rev. St. #. § 6362.—Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W. s
III. EXAMINATION. (A) Taking Testimony in General.
C>255 (Tex.Cr.App.) The memory of a witness may be refreshed by propounding questions to her and exhibiting to her her testimony given at the coroner's inquest.—Taylor V. State, 179 S. W. 113.
(IB) Cross-Examination and . Re-examination.
C=269 (Tex.Cr.App.). Where defendant's wife admitted adultery with deceased, which had been set up as provocation, the state could prove her contradictory statements to the county attorney after the homicide, but could not prove a material fact on a different branch of the case. as to which she did not testify in chief.—Mitchell v. State, 179 S. W. 116. Q=278 (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 error.— Counts v. State, 179 S. W. 662. C>280 (Ky.) In an action for slander, a question on cross-examination calling for the relations between plaintiff and the witness held inadmissible as framed.—Deitchman v. Bowles, 179 S. W. 249.
C: 321 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 815, the state cannot impeach its witness who failed to remember and testify to facts stated at the coroner's inquest as to which it was sought to refresh the witness’ memory.— Taylor V. State, 179 S. W. 113. C>330 (Tex.Cr. App.) In prosecution for slander for asserting sexual relations, held proper to exclude a question to prosecuting witness on cross-examination whether she would submit to medical examination.—Robison v. State, 179 S. W. 1157.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
&=337 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for swindling, previous similar charges held admissible in evidence to impeach the credibility of accused as a witness.—Arnold v. State, 179 S. W. 1183. &=345 (Ky.) Impeachment of witness by showing his mere arrest on a warrant charging false swearing held improper, under Civ. Code Prac. § 597.—Consolidation Coal Co. v. Vanover, 179 S. W. 43. Q:345 (Ky.) Conviction of burning insured property is admissible to impeach the credibility of a plaintiff suing on an insurance policy. -Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Wright, 179 S. W. 49.
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.
Q:369 (Tex.Cr.App.) To impeach a witness for defendant in seduction, the state may show witness prescribed for prosecutrix to produce an abortion.—McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. C>376 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused sought to show that a state's witness was taking an active interest in the prosecution, the court could permit the state to show the reason of the witness’ interest.—Word V. State, 179 S. W. 1175.
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.
<>379 (Ky.) A witness may properly be impeached by proof of his statements out of court inconsistent with his testimony.—Liverpool & £ & Globe Ins. Co. v. Wright, 179 S.
C+396 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of plaintiff as to circumstances surrounding the giving, of a statement and as to its falsity was admissible to rebut the statement given to contradict plaintiff’s testimony.—Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. V. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.
(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of Witness.
C>405 (Ky.) Where, in action on note for borrowed money, defendant denied ever borrowing money from plaintiff, check claimed to represent a different loan held competent to im'' defendant.—Shelby V. Grabble, 179 S. G:414 (Tex.Civ.App.) Report of defendant railway’s investigator on condition of a car coupling in operating which plaintiff was injured is not admissible to corroborate the testimony of the investigator, unless made before motive for concealing defects arose.—Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
“Accomplice.”—Richardson v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 179 S. W. 458; Denman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 120; Bagley v. Same, Id. 1167.
“Adequate cause.”—Vollintine v. State (Tex.
74. “Frequent.”—Halliday v. State (Ark.) 179 S. W. 1004. “Goods and chattels.”—Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375. “Goods, chattels, or assets or any estate, real or personal.”-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375. “Imply.”—State v. Wilcox (Mo.) 179 S. W. 479. “Institution of purely public charity.”—Mason County v. Hayswood Hospital of Maysville (Ky.) 179 S. W. 1050. “Interest.”-Smith v. Southern Foundry Co. (Ky.) 179 S. W. 205. “Jitneys.”—City of Memphis v. State (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 631. “Judgment.”—Moore v. Toyah Valley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550. “Judgment of nonsuit.”—Woods v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 179 S.W. 727. “Jurisdictional defect.”-Edge v. Allen (Ky.) 9 S. W. 212. “Lease.”—Patchen-Wilkes Stock Farm Co. v. Walton (Ky.) 179 S. W. 823. “Lessee.”-Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 711. “Liability.”-Jennings v. National American (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 789.
“Nonexclusive power of appointment.”—Barret's
“Property or any interest therein.”—McDaniel v. Herrn (Ark.) 179 S. W. 337. “Railroad.”—Hellriegel v. Dunham (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 763. “Reasonably safe.”—Sanford-Day Iron Works v. Moore (Tenn.) 179 S.W. 373. “Rendition of judgment.”—Moore V. Toyah Walley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 550. “Representation.”—American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 66. “Reputable.”—Dewein v. State (Ark.) 179 S.