« EelmineJätka »
may state facts upon which his opinion is based. to send her to jail unless she repeated former
-State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
testimony which she said was false and in-
491(1) (Mo.) Expert witness testifying to duced by coercion and which she finally repeat-
identity of handwriting under Rev. St. 1909, $ed, judgment of conviction must be reversed.-
6382, may testify in regard to difference or sim- Venable y. State, 207 S. W. 520.
ilarity of letters or words and in regard to any
matter appearing on the face of the writings.--
(C) Reception of Evidence.
State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
673(4) (Mo.) If evidence is admissible as
(J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code-
against one of several coconspirators, it will not
be excluded because it is incompetent as against
ww511(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) In view of statute
others; an instruction being then required as to
the proper application, purpose, and effect of
as to required proof, conviction of perjury can-
not be sustained upon testimony of two accom-
such evidence.-State v. Bersch, 207 S. W. 809.
plices, or upon the testimony of one credible
(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.
witness and one accomplice.-Melton v. State,
207 S. W. 316.
706 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the district at-
511(10) (Tex.Cr. App.) In view of statute torney and prosecuting officer threatened pros-
as to required proof, conviction of perjury can- ecutrix, a girl under 15 years of age, with a
not be sustained upon testimony of two ac- prosecution for perjury unless she repeated her
complices.--Melton v. State, 207 S. W. 316.. testimony as given before court of inquiry and
grand jury which she said was false and in-
duced by coercion, and she was thus induced to
Om 519(1) (Ark.) A confession having once testify, a conviction based thereon must be re-
been voluntarily made. the fact that appellant versed.---Venable v. State, 207 S. W. 520.
afterwards repeated the confession under du-
w714 (Mo.) Prosecuting attorney's remarks
ress did not destroy or lessen the effect of the
as to former conviction of defendant were im-
voluntary confession.--Lind v. State, 207 S. W.
proper under Rev. St. 1909, § 5283.-State v.
Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
519(3) (Tex Cr Ann) Under Code Cr. Proc 7 2012 (Mo.) In prosecutor's remark to jury
1911, art. 810, as to oral confession made by
that, if trial judge had not been satisfied that
accused while in custody of an officer being in a finding of guilt was authorized, he would
admissible, it is unnecessary that arrest be
have "grabbed the prosecutor and the principal
made in formal words if it clearly appears from
witness and thrown them out of the window."
the surrounding facts.-Clark v. State, 207 S. held improper, tending to make jury think that
court thought defendant guilty or he would not
C 535(2) (Ark.) Although under Kirby's Dig. have permitted prosecution.-State v. Stegner,
$ 2385, one could not be convicted of seduc-
| 207 S. W. 826.
tion upon his confession alone, yet, when com-
Om723(5) Tex.Cr.App.) That the county at-
bined with testimony of prosecutrix establish-| torney in a larceny case, referring to defendant,
ing the corpus delicti, it is sufficient.--Lind v.
said, "He is no account trifling negro," and
State, 207 S. W. 47.
asked the jury if they would like to credit him
with $20 did not constitute reversible error,
(M) Weight and Sufficiency.
Watkins v. State, 207 S. W. 926.
cm 552(3) (Ky.) A conviction may be rested on
In a prosecution of a negro for larceny of
circumstantial evidence, when it is of such a
| cotton, a statement by the county attorney to
nature as to establish with reasonable cer-
the jury that they knew "that last fall cotton
tainty the guilt of accused.--Taylor v. Com-
was good, and any negro could have had money
monwealth, 207 S. W. 456.
sufficient to go to the Dallas fair," did not con-
553 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the examination
stitute reversible error.-Id.
of a prosecuting witness shows that her tes-
Ow726 (Ky.) That in a homicide case the pros-
timony on which a conviction for rape is based ecuting attorney, after defendant had objected
was induced by threats and coercion. her tes- to exhibition of deceased's garments, made
timony is not sufficiently creditable to sustain
remarks relative to deceased's dying groans,
a conviction.-Venable v. State, 207 S. W. 520.
was not error, when introduced as repartee to
defendant's unwarranted objections.-Slone F.
XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINU- Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 464.
Om730(9) (Ky.) In u burglary prosecution, a
597(2) (Ky.) Where witnesses had testified
statement by the prosecuting attorney that "I
believe that this robbery was deliberately plan-
defendant said to his father, "Pap, by God, get
ned” by defendants was not reversible error, as
out of the way," refusal to pass case on ground
that absent witness would testify that witness-
expressing the prosecuting attorney's individual
| opinion, when he immediately corrected it by
es testified on examining trial that defend-
| saying he believed such facts could be inferred
ant had said, “Get out of the way, Pap, get
from the testimony, and in view of cautionary
out of the way, get out of the way," was not in
instructions.--Crowe v. Commonwealth, 207 S.
error; the discrepancy between the two state-
ments being so slight as not to amount to a
material contradiction.-Hurley v. Common-I(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen-
wealth, 207 S. W. 451.
742(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) The credibility of wit-
(B) Course and conduct of Trial in Gen-
nesses is a question for the jury.-Martinez v.
752 (Mo.) Where defendant demurs to evi-
641(6) (Mo.) In a prosecution for arson,dence at the close of the state's testimony and
where, after one of the jurors had said that subsequently offers testimony in his own behalf
defendant's brother-in-law had attempted to after the demurrer has been overruled, the
bribe him, defendant's counsel withdrew from demurrer will be deemed waived; but, where
the case, it was not an abuse of discretion for he renews demurrer at the close of all the tes.
the trial court to permit them to do so.-State v. timony and preserves error in motion for new
Bersch, 207 S. W. 809.
trial, he may have a review of the entire testi-
655(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the trial judge mony.-State v. Starling, 207 S. W. 767.
mainly in the absence of the jury reminded 763. 764(3, 4) (Mo.) Instruction that there
prosecutrix in a rape case, a girl under 15 is no evidence showing or tending to show that
years of age, that he had power to inflict the defendant was justified in killing deceased was
death penalty and had just sent a woman to the error, it being for the jury to find as one of
penitentiary, and committed prosecutrix to the vital issues in the case that defendant killed
custody overnight, and subsequently threatened deceased.--State y. Fox, 207 S. W. 779.
State, 207squestion for the credibility of wit.
Where; after one ha prosecution
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
763, 764(17) (Mo.) In a prosecution for ar- and distinct offenses, a general verdict, without
son, an instruction restricting the effect and op- designating of which offense he is found guilty,
eration of certain evidence to one of the cocon cannot stand.-State y. McHenry, 207 S. W.
spirators was not therefore bad as a comment 808.
on the evidence.-State v. Bersch, 207 S. W. Rev. St. 1909, $ 4528, permitting burglary
and larceny to be charged in the same count and
indictment, constitutes an exception to the gen.
(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency oral rule that a person cannot on the same trial
be convicted of two different and distinct felo-
Ca778(2) (Mo.) An instruction in a murder nies, but does not operate to avoid the necessity
case as to circumstantial evidence and as to of a finding by a jury of what particular of-
what was essential in order to convict held fense or offenses defendant has been guilty.-Id.
not erroneous, as authorizing inferences found-m884 Qo.) In a trial for burglary and lar-
ed on inferred facts.--State v. Garrett, 207 S. ceny charged in the same count as permitted by
Rev. St. 1909, § 4528, the verdict, if finding de-
w 779 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault fendant guilty of both offenses, should fix a
with intent to rape, instruction that defendant separate penalty for each offense.-State v. Mc-
would not be responsible for the act of an- Henry, 207 S. W. 808.
other, unless there was some agreement, com-
bination, or conspiracy between him and such XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL
other, etc., was misleading and properly re-
AND IN ARREST.
fused.-Lockett v. State, 207 S. W. 55.
On 925/2(3) Tex.Cr.App.) That the jury, in
Om785(9) (Mo.) A cautionary instruction in a their deliberations, referred to the fact that
murder trial as to the credibility of witnesses defendant during the trial dozed off to sleep
that in hearing their testimony the jury may and nodded several times, does not require a
take into consideration his or her interest, feel- new trial, since the jury was not inhibited from
ing for, or relation to defendant was not errone talking of his manner and conduct in passing
ous, as not including state's witnesses, since it upon the weight of his testimony.-Wright v.
would embrace antagonism as well as friend- State, 207 S. W. 99.
ship.--State v. Garrett, 207 S. W. 784.
939(1) (Ark.) A party asking for a new
Cm 800(2) (Mo.) In a prosecution for arson, trial in a criminal case for newly discovered
that the court defined the word "attempt” by evidence should show facts from which it will
using the words of Rev. St. 1909, § 4891, was
appear that he could not have ascertained or
not prejudicial; it being a word of general obtained the evidence by reasonable diligence.
significance and easily understood.-State v. -Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47.
Bersch, 207 S. W. 809.
800(6) (Mo.) In a prosecution for murder in XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND
the first degree, it was reversible error to fail to
define the word “deliberately” as descriptive, of 984 (Mo.) In a prosecution for burglary in
the offense.-State v. Garrett, 207 S. W. 784.
ww814(3) (Ky.) An instruction not sustained the second degree and for grand larceny under
by the evidence should not have been given.-one, count, a verdict in separate paragraphs,
Hurley v. Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 451.
each designating the offense of which defendant
814(17) (Mo.) Where there was direct evi- was found guilty, and prescribing the punish-
dence of defendant's guilt, an instruction on the ment within the limits of the statute, imposes
weight to be given circumstantial evidence was
cumulative sentences.-State v. Starling, 207
S. W. 767.
not required.-State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
Cm823(17) (Mo) Failure to define "heat of
XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND
passion" was without prejudice to defendant,
where the court set out concretely the facts
that would warrant such heat of passion, as
(B) Presentation and Reservation in Low-
would reduce the crime from murder to man-
er Court of Grounds of Review.
slaughter in the fourth degree.-State v. Fox, mas 1035(3) (Mo.) Act of wife of deceased at the
207 S. W. 779.
trial of a homicide case in drawing a pistol
and wounding defendant was "conduct of spec-
(H) Requests for Instructions.
tators,” and cannot be reviewed, where no ef-
Onw829(1) (Ark.) There was no error in omit- fort was made to preserve and present the mat-
ting matter from a requested instruction where it was set up in motion for new trial.-State
ter for review by bill of exceptions, nor until
the court expressly charged as to such omitted
matter in another instruction.-Lind v. State, 1036(1) (Mo.) Where testimony in a prose-
v. Jones, 207 S. W. 793.
207 S. W. 47.
829(1) (Mo.) It was not error to refuse to considered on appeal.--State v. Bersch, 207 S.
tion for arson is not objected to, it will not be
grant instructions fully covered by instructions W. 809.
given.---State v. Jones, 207 S. W. 793.
1036(4) (Ky.) In a homicide case where de-
(J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations cedent's shirt was allowed to be introduced in
evidence without objection, it was not reversible
error to allow the admission of both the vest
858(3) (Ky.) It is better practice not to and shirt without showing that they were in
permit former verdicts written upon an in- the same condition as at the time of the diffi-
dictment to be taken to the jury room, and, if culty, where no objection was made thereto,
the attention of the trial court should be call- because without objection the evidence will
ed to the fact, it would be his duty to prevent not be presumed to be incompetent.--Slone v.
it, either by withholding indictment or requir- Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 464.
ing obliteration of former verdict.-Williams v. 1038(1) (Ark.) If language of instruction
Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 447.
was thought to be ambiguous, specific objection
w867 (Mo.) In a prosecution for arson, where ought to have been made at the time.-Lockett
defenciant's counsel withdrew upon a juror's v. State, 207 S. W. 55.
announcement that defendant's brother-in-law mw 1039 (Ky.j It was not reversible error for
had attempted to bribe him, it was not an abuse jury to take to its room indictment for larceny
of discretion to refuse to discharge jury, where on which was written former verdiet acquitting
they on their oath stated the incident would defendant's codefendant; defendant's attorney
have no influence on their verdict.--State v. not having objected, and not having known of
Bersch, 207 S. W. 809.
indorsement on indictment, discoverable by in-
spection.-Williams v. Commonwealth, 207 S.
881(4) (Mo.) Where defendant is charged om 1043(1) (Mo.) Where defendant demurs to
in the indictment with two or more different evidence at the close of the state's testimony
and subsequently offers testimony in his own l 111(5) (Ark.) Entries in judgment rec-
behalf after the demurrer has been overruled, ord prevail over statements contained in bill of
the demurrer will be deemed waived: but, where exceptions, where inconsistent therewith.-
he renews demurrer at the close of all the tes- Brooks v. State, 207 S. W. 209.
timony and preserves error in motion for new Where appellant was allowed only 30 days
trial. he may have a review of the entire testi- | in which to file bill of exceptions by judgment
mony.-State v. Starling, 207 S. W. 767. record, a purported bill, filed after such 30
en 1043(2) (Ky.) Erroneous action of trial days, but within 60 days, will not be consider-
court in prosecution for larceny in declining ed part of the record, although purported bill
to permit witness to answer material question stated that appellant was allowed 60 days in
cannot be considered by Court of Appeals, which to file bill; entry in record prevailing
where there was no avowal made of what the over inconsistent statement in bill.-Id.
witness would say if permitted to answer. ||17 (Ky.) Denial of motion for change of
Williams v. Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 447. venue on account of derogatory statements
Om 1044 (Mo.) Where name of one of state's concerning accused, made in the presence of
witnesses was not indorsed on indictment, to persons summoned from another county for
be available on appeal the error should have jury service, cannot be held prejudicial, where
been called to court's attention by a motion to the record of the trial does not show that any
quash information.-State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. one serving on the jury heard them.-Frazier
v. Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 13.
1048 (Mo.) An averment of prejudice be-
cause of the separation of the jury in a criminal
(E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs.
case will not be considered when unsupported; Om 1130(3) (Mo.App.) An appeal brief, which
allegations in motions for a new trial not being fails to set forth any "points and authorities,"
the nature of exceptions, but simply preserving as required by Rev. St. 1909, $ 3941, is insuffi-
for consideration on appeal those which have cient.-Kansas City v. Proudfit, 207 S. W. 845.
been properly made.-State v. Starling, 207 S.
1056(1) (Mo.) Although there was abundante 1134(4) (Ky.) Since the amendment of 1910
evidence that defendant's general reputation to Code Cr. Prac. $ 281, Court of Appeals may
was good upon the specified phase of character consider error of trial court in its rulings on
involved, where no exception was saved, the act motions for new trial, and reverse a convic-
of trial court in failing to instruct on "the sub- tion, where the verdict is against the evidence.
ject of good character," as provided by Rev. St. |--Williams v. Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 447.
1909, § 5231, cannot be reviewed.--State v. 1144(18) (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the order
Cook, 207 S. W. 831.
overruling motion for new trial shows that the
Om 1064(7) (Mo.) An assignment of error, in court heard evidence and thereon determined
the motion for a new trial in a criminal case, the motion should be overruled, the presump-
that "the court erred in instructions to the jury, tion in favor of the correctness of the court's
duly excepted to," preserves nothing in view of ruling which is indulged on appeal implies that
Rev. St, 1909, $ 5285.-State v. Starling, 207 the evidence was sufficient to authorize the
S. W. 767.
judgment rendered. --Wright v. State, 207 S.
Om 1064(7) (Mo.) Where the motion for a new W. 99.
trial in a criminal case only referred to the 144(19) (Tex.Cr. App.) Where a qualifica.
instructions complained of in a general way, tion by the trial judge of a bill of exceptions is
the action of the trial court in regard to the criticized by appellant, but without taking an
same is not subject to review.-State v. Dinkel- exception thereto, it will be presumed on review
kamp. 207 S. W. 770.
that the explanation was attached with appel-
Om 1064(7) (Mo.) The court on appeal will not lant's approval; the law not requiring him to
refuse to consider the action of the trial court accept a qualified bill.--Bryant v. State, 207 S.
in giving objectionable instruction, although as- / W. 930.
signment in motion for new trial sets out the no 1150 (Ky.) Whether change of venue should
wrong number of the instruction; the assign- / be granted in a criminal case is a matter with-
ment being verbally sufficient, and the mistake a in the sound discretion of the trial court, and
mere clerical error.-State v. Fox, 207 S. W. lits decisions that
its decision thereon will not be reversed, un-
less it appears that it abused its discretion.--
Frazier v. Commonwealth, 207 S. W. 13.
(1)) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec.
Om 1153(4) (Mo.) Court on appeal will not in-
terfere with trial court's discretion in excluding
Om 1090(1) (Mo.) Where the transcript does testimony offered on cross-examination of state's
not contain a bill of exceptions, review will be witness, where there was nothing tending to
confined to the record proper.-State v. Lundy, show bias or prejudice, and where cross-examina-
207 S. W. 770.
tion was limited as to nature of inquiry and
1090(8) (Ark.) Assignments of error chal-tended to throw light upon witness' attitude up-
lenging the sutficiency of the evidence to sus on the subject under investigation.-State y.
tain conviction can only be brought into the Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
record by bill of exceptions.-Brooks v. State, m 1159(2) (Mo.) Weight of the evidence in a
207 S. W. 209.
criminal case is for the jury.-State v. Dinkel-
Om 1090(13) (Mo.) Where no remarks of the kamp, 207 S. W. 770.
prosecuting attorney complained of in a motion 1159(2) (Mo.) It is only when there is a
for a new trial in a criminal case are set forth total failure of substantial evidence of the ele.
in the bill of exceptions or otherwise preservedments or some one element of an offense that
for review, such assignment will not be consid- the court on appeal is permitted to interfere
ered.-State v. Starling, 207 S. W. 767.
with the verdict on the ground that the evidence
Om 1090 (14) (Ark.) Assignments of error, is insufficient to sustain it.-State v. Cook, 207
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to S. W. 831.
sustain conviction, and court's refusal to give om 1166(1) (Mo.) Refusal to exclude testimony
requested instructions, can be brought into the on ground that witness' name was not indorsed
record by bill of exceptions only.--Brooks v. on indictment was not error, where there was no
State, 207 S. W. 209.
showing that defendant had been prejudiced by
1090 (16) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the only such omission.--State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
question suggested in the motion for a new trial 1 170(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution of
is that the judgment is contrary to the law and a town marshal for aggravated assault while
the evidence, the same cannot be considered in making an arrest for violation of a traffic ordi-
the absence of a statement of facts; there be-nance, there was no reversible error in reject-
ing no bill of exceptions.--Martinez V. State, ing evidence that the injured party had violat-
207 S. W. 930.
Ted a traffic ordinance on a previous occasion :
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
issue being whether a forcible resistance was III. GROUNDS AND SUBJECTS OF
being made.-Harper v. State, 207 S. W. 96.
1170(2) (Mo.) Where defendant was permit-
ted, on cross-examining mother of prosecutrix (A) Direct
Prospective, Consequences or Losses.
in a prosecution for manslaughter in producing
an abortion resulting in the death of a quick cm32 (Mo.App.). "Suffering, in the
child, to inquire fully as to time when she ac- from injury is distinguished from "permanent
quired knowledge of her daughter's condition, injury," in that the former will persist after
exclusion of evidence of another witness on the trial, but may cease. while the latter will
cross-examination as to conversation with the last throughout life.-Colby v. Thompson, 207
mother to show her prior knowledge was harm- S. W. 73.
less; purpose being only to discredit the țes- m 40(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for slander
timony of the prosecutrix to the fact that her and for wrongful interference in contractual
mother was aware of her condition prior to the relations, resulting in tie-up of plaintiff's ship,
alleged abortion.-State v. Dinkelkamp, 207 S. ment of cotton, damages cannot be recovered
for loss of profits plaintiff might have made
Om | 1701/2(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for as- by engaging in other business during period of
sault with intent to rape, permitting state to tie-up, instead of devoting his time to effort to
introduce testimony tending to establish pros, settle shipment controversy; such damages be-
ecutrix's general reputation for truth and ing too remote and speculative.-Providence-
morality, contrary to Kirby's Dig. 8 3140, pro- Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens, 207 S. W. 666.
viding that evidence of good character is in- en 55 (Ky.) In an action for damages for in-
admissible until general reputation has been juries to sheep, crops, and loss of time for tres-
impeached, was reversible error.-Lockett v.
pass committed by defendant's dogs, damages for
State, 207 S. W. 55.
the mental distress of plaintiff are not recor-
erable.-Stephens v. Schadler, 207 S. W. 704.
(H) Determination and
VI. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
en 1184 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the trial court
(B) Injuries to Property.
on conviction for murder failed to apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, Vernon's Ann. Om 112 (Tex.Com. App.) In action for the negli-
Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 865a, the judgment gent burning of grass in a pasture, a charge,
entering the sentence will be reformed so that permitting recovery for the cost of feed and ex-
it will provide for confinement in the state penses of caring for cattle, does not furnish a
penitentiary within the period fixed by law as certain rule of damages, but the correct rule is
the minimum and maximum penalty for the to permit recovery for the value of the grass at
offense.-Wright v. State, 207 Ŝ. W. 99.
the date of its destruction.-Chicago, R, I. &
cm 1186(4) (Mo.) While the Supreme Court is G. Ry. Co. v. Word, 207 S. W. 902.
required to render judgment on the record in The market value of grass for the purpose for
criminal cases, under Rev. St. 1909, $ 5312, which it was used is the measure of damages
there is no more authority for the reversal of a for its negligent burning, but if there was no
criminal than a civil case, where it is disclosed market value, then recovery should be for the
that the error complained of does not affect the reasonable value of the grass for the purpose for
merits of the action, under section 2082.-State which it was being used or for which intended.
v. Porter, 207 S. W. 774.
| and contribution which they might reasonably
173(1) (Ky.) In servant's action for inju- have expected from a son of 23, and, where
ries, trial court properly refused to permit em- |
it em- they were not in need of the financial aid of the
ployer to prove that two or three days before son, though he was at home and devoted all
plaintiff quit work and filed action, he was told his time to their service, an award of $3,500
he could stay and do what he could, and would was excessive.-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
be paid full wages; evidence not being compe- Huckabee, 207 S. W. 329.
tent to rebut servant's evidence that power
to earn had been reduced.-Lexington Roller
Mills Co. v. Fields, 207 S. W. 477.
Cum 182 (Mo.App.) The fact that defendant in I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
a personal injury suit has paid plaintiff's hos-
pital and doctor bills cannot be considered by
I 16(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where road had long
the jury in determining compensation for in- been used as public roadway, a judgment sano
juries sustained by defendant's negligence. tioning agreement that road be opened up and
Bock v. Rinderknecht, 207 S. W. 245.
dedicated as a public road, in connection with
another judgment ordering road to be opened
and an obstruction removed and the acts of
the parties to the judgment, owners of land
See Abatement and Revival, Omw48; Appeal upon which right of way was located and public
and Error, m1060; Commerce, 8; Ev- officials treating road as public highway, con-
idence, w 471, 539; Limitation of Actions, stituted a dedication to public use. -Santa Fe
w127: Master and Servant, ew107, 190, Town Site Co. v. Norvell, 207 S. W. 960.
264, 274, 281, 286, 289; Negligence, On 7, District court's judgment giving legal sanction
111, 134, 135; Trial, w351; Witnesses, to agreement of parties, whereby road long used
as public road was opened up and dedicated as
à public road, was not invalid as an infringe-
I. EVIDENCE OF DEATH AND OF ment upon exclusive rights of commissioners'
court to lay out public road.-Id.
2(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Where the evidence
18(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Deed expressly stat-
shows that a man was unmarried and had re-
ing that all streets and alleys are dedicated to
moved from the state many years ago and has
the public generally, and especially to the city,
not been heard from for 15 years, such facts
that red lines on map indicate public sidewalks,
are insufficient to raise presumption of death
four feet wide, and that green shadings indi-
under Rev. St. 1911, art. 5707.-Stiles v. Hawk-
cate private parking between the sidewalk and
ins, 207 S. W. 89.
curbing, would constitute a dedication to the
public of an easement in sidewalk space, but
II. ACTIONS FOR CAUSING DEATH.
not in strip designated private parking.-Sum-
mit Place Co. v. Terrell, 207 S. W. 145.
(A) Right of Action and Defenses. Om 19(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) If intention of maker
14(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In actions to recover of map was to include sidewalk space and pri-
damages for injuries to or the death of chil- | vate parking space as portions of corner lots.
dren, as in cases to recover damages for the such intention was adopted by the owner when
death or injuries to adults, suit cannot be main-it recorded the map.-Summit Place Co. v. Ter-
tained unless defendant has been guilty of a rell, 207 S. W. 145.
breach of duty.-Flippen-Prather Realty Co.
v. Mather, 207 S. W. 121.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
Om 48 (Tex.Civ.App.) Previous dedication of
(B) Jurisdiction, Venne, and Limitations.
sidewalk, by map duly recorded, and by refer-
39 (Tex.) Under federal Employers' Liabili- ence made a part of deed, precludes grantee
ty Act (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, 88 8657-8665), from using sidewalk space for building pur-
cause of action in case of death does not ac- poses.-Summit Place Co. v. Terrell, 207 S.
crue until appointment of a personal represent- W. 145.
ative of deceased, and, where deceased's wife
filed petition within two years after she was
appointed administratrix, action was not barred. See Adverse Possession, Ow70, 100; Appeal
--Bird v. Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co., 207 S. W. and Error, 1177; Courts, 18; Dedi-
cation, 18, 48; Dower, 13; Easement.
C10; Escrows, m3, 9; Evidence, 83,
(E) Damages, Forfeiture, or Fine.
158, 177, 186, 317, 318, 419; Exchange of
85 (Tex.Civ.App.) Surviving wife, in action Property. 4; Fixtures, 21; Fraudu-
for death of husband, is entitled to recover for lent Conveyances, w283; Husband and
the pecuniary loss, if any, suffered by her in Wife, 119, 193, 198, 273; Injunction, com
husband's death.--San Antonio Portland Ce 128 ; Judgment, Om788; Limitation of Ac-
ment Co. v. Gschwender, 207 S. W. 967.
tions, m72; Mortgages; Pleading, m8;
86(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for death, Quieting Title, 35; Specific Performance,
where deceased leaves widow and children, dam Om 12; Subrogation,' 23; Trespass to
ages are not limited to loss of actual earning Try Title, Om4, 25, 35, 41, 47; Trusts, from
power of deceased, and jury may award chil 114; Wills, 8s.
dren damages for loss of a father's nurture and
admonition.-Lancaster & Wight v. Allen, 207 I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
S. W. 984.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyan.
99(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) A verdict of $10,000
ces in General.
for the death of a healthy, robust, and bright
Om 17(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, in payment of
son about seven years old, is not so large as to
| indebtedness of about $1,000, land was convey-
indicate that jury was actuated by improper
ed which the evidence offered by grantor tended
motives, and will not be disturbed on appeal.
-Flippen-Prather Realty Co. v. Mather, 207 |
to show was worth about $1,500, the difference
S. W. 121.
between its value and the indebtedness was not
99(4) (Tex. Civ. App.) In action for death of | so great as to require court to set aside deed
48 year old fireman, a $27,000 judgment, award-
for inadequacy of consideration alone. Grun-
ed to widow and seven children, was not so ex-
dy v. Greene, 207 S. W. 964.
cessive as to require reduction by Court of Civil
Appeals.-Lancaster & Wight v. Allen, 207 S.
56(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) For a deed to operate
99(5) Tex.Civ.App.) Parents are entitled as a conveyance, there must have been delir-
to recover only compensation for the services'ery with intent and purpose on the part of the