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.

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.-330 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for slanMcCracken 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.

der 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.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

345 (Ky.) Conviction of burning insured 208 (Mo.App.) In action against street rail- property is admissible to impeach the credibiliroad for personal injury, refusal to allow de- ty of a plaintiff suing on an insurance policy. fendant's regular physician, who examined plain-Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. tiff's injury while attempting to settle her claim, Wright, 179 S. W. 49. to disclose his knowledge of such injury, held proper.-Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W. 735. 219 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff, who offered her 369 (Tex.Cr.App.) To impeach a witness for 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. 1909, § 6362.-Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W.

735.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General. 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.

defendant in seduction, the state may show witness prescribed for prosecutrix to produce an abortion.-McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880.

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 & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Wright, 179 S. W. 49.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina-396 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of plaintiff as

tion.

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.

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.

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 Š. W. 691.

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of Witness.

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 impeach defendant.-Shelby v. Grabble, 179 S. W. 1.

280 (Ky.) In an action for slander, a ques-414 (Tex.Civ.App.) Report of defendant tion on cross-examination calling for the rela- railway's investigator on condition of a car tions between plaintiff and the witness held in- coupling in operating which plaintiff was inadmissible as framed.-Deitchman v. Bowles, jured is not admissible to corroborate the tes179 S. W. 249. timony of the investigator, unless made before motive for concealing defects arose.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

286 (Tex.Cr.App.) Question on redirect examination of witness, who claimed that he, and not accused, assaulted the prosecuting witness, as to whether he had ever testified on oath about this, held immaterial, in view of his cross-examination.-Vinson v. State, 179 S. W.

311 (Ark.) A credible person is one having capacity to testify on given subject and worthy of belief, and lack of knowledge on the subject of particular inquiry renders witness not credible in reference thereto.-Dewein v. State, 179

Commonwealth

WORDS AND PHRASES.
"Accomplice."-Richardson
(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.
Cr. App.) 179 S. W. 108.
"Adverse possession."-Wichita Valley Ry. Co.
v. Somerville (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 671.
"Agistment."-Patchen-Wilkes Stock Farm Co.
v. Walton (Ky.) 179 S. W. 823.
"Appurtenance."-Kentucky Distilleries &
Warehouse Co. v. Warwick Co. (Ky.) 179 S.

"Assets."-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. | "Liable to forfeiture."-Jennings v. National Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375. "Chattel."-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375. "Chose in action."-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Tenn.) 179 S. W. 375. "Citizen."-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State (Ark.) 179 S. W. 342.

"Judgment."-Moore v. Toyah Valley Irr. Co. See Prisons, 10.
(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.)
179 S. W. 212.

"Lease."-Patchen-Wilkes Stock Farm Co. v.
Walton (Ky.) 179 S. W. 823.

Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus; Ne Exeat; Process; Prohibition; Replevin; Sequestration.

"Lessee."-Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 179 Of error, see Appeal and Error.