I CORNELL LAW LIBRARY QJnrnfU IGaui ^rlionl SibrarB Cornell University Library KF9219.H89 Hughes' criminal law; the law of crimes. 3 1924 020 159 491 COPYKIGHT 1901 BY THE BOWEN-MEEEILL CO. PREFACE This work embodies the experience of the author in actual, unin- terrupted practice in the courts for a period of twenty years. It is designed to give a clear and concise outline of the criminal law. No efforts have been spared in attempting to collect, classify and arrange all the rules and principles of this branch of the law in such manner that the practitioner may be able to find what is needed in the prepa- ration and trial of a criminal cause. The author has presented very fully the law as found in the official and recognized law reports of this country and England, and in the works of text-writers of authority. In addition to collecting and classifying the rules as above stated, especially those involving questions of fact, the reader will observe that numerous cases are cited as examples illustrating the rules. It is, indeed, often difficult to determine whether the facts proven or admitted in' a case constitute one offense or another, or whether any offense at all, — as, for instance, whether the case be one of larceny or embezzlement, or murder or manslaughter, — and to aid in the solution of such questions no better guide can be given than a few well con- sidered cases. In citing eases, as a matter of convenience and quick reference, the author has endeavored, so far as possible, to give all the reports in which each case may be found. To illustrate : S. v. JFurney, 41 Kan. 115, 21 Pae. 213, 8 Am. C. E. 136, 13 Am. St. 362, which means that this case is reported in each of these four reports. One other feature of this work should be mentioned. In selecting and arranging the subject-matter into chapters for each specific (iii) IV PKEFACE. criminal offense, the author has exercised his best judgment, and has endeavored to note only such matters as are peculiar to the particular crime or offense under consideration. If, for example, the prac- titioner has under consideration the subject of dying declarations, he naturally turns to the chapter on Homicide, because evidence of dying declarations relates to the law of Homicide only. And if the question be one general in its nature, as the subject of confessions, the lawyer will very naturally turn to the chapter on Evidence, which treats of the general principles of evidence, because evidence of con- fessions is applicable to any criminal offense. The subjects of In- dictments, Defenses and other portions of the work are treated in like itianner. With this brief explanation the author submits this work to the' judgment of the legal profession. Chicago, September 15, 1901. C. H. CONTENTS DIVISION ONE CRIMINAL OFFENSES PART ONE OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAFTBB PAOB I. Homicide 1 II. Assaults 46 III. Abduction 61 IV. Kidnapping 69 V. Rape 74 VI. Mayhem 94 PART TWO OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY VII. Larceny 98 VIII. Embezzlement 134 IX. False Pretense 157 (V) VI CHAPTER X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. CONTENTS. PABB Receiving Stolen Goods 184 Burglary 192 Robbery 214 Madicious Mischief . 222 Arson 231 Forgery 24& Fraudulent Conveyances 268 Blackmail ; Threats 270 Fowling and Fishing 273 Forcible Entry and Detainer 278^ Trespass 281 PART THREE OFFENSES AGAINST PEACE AND ORDER XXI. Abandonment of Wife 285 XXII. Disorderly Conduct 28& XXIII. Affray 296 XXIV. Disorderly House 298 XXV. Dueling 307 XXVI. Concealed Weapons 308 XXVII. Conspiracy 315 XXVIII. Libel 332 XXIX. Riot 342 XXX. Obstructing Highways 346 XXXI. Sunday Violations 353 XXXII. Intoxicating Liquors 360 XXXIII. Barratry, Maintenance and Champerty .. 386 CONTENTS. vu PART FOUR i OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE CHAPTER PAGE XXXIV. Bribery 388 XXXV. Embracery 397 ' XXXVI. Malfeasance in Office 399 XXXVII. Resisting Officer 403 XXXVIII. Perjury 408 XXXIX. Contempt 428 XL. Compounding Offenses '. . .466 XLI. Escape ; Rescue 468 XLII. Tampering with Witness 472 PART FIVE OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH XLIII. Adulteration of Food 474 XLIV. Medicine and Dentistry 480 ■XLV. Public Nuisances 486 PART SIX OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS ' XLVI. Abortion 492 XLVII. Adultery 501 XLVIII. Bigamy -. 509 .viii eoNJTEJfwsO CHAPTER PAGB XLIX. Bastardy 518 L. Incest 530 i/I. House of III Fame 53.7 j LII. Seduction 543 LIII. Obscene Liteeature ; Indecency 554 LIV. Gaming 560 LV. Lottery .-574 LVI. Sepulture Violations — ^73 LVII. Blasphemy '.582 LVIil. Sodomy — Crime against Nature 584 PART SEVEN OFFENSES AGAINST GOVERNMENT LIX. .Election Law Violations ., 587 LX. Postal Law Violations 601 LXI. Revenue Law Violations ...607 LXII. Treason 611 LXIII. Piracy 612 PART EIGHT MATTERS OF DEFENSE LXIV. Defenses , 614 LXV. Intent ..632 LXVI. Principal and Accessory -636 CONTENTS. l?: jCHAPTER PAOJ! LXVII. Reasonable Doubt .641 LXYIII. Constitutional Law ,644 LXIX. Construction 654 LXX. Statutes 658 LXXI. Jurisdiction , 661 LXXII. Jeopardy 668 DIVISION TWO PART NINE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE LXXIII. Arrests 681 LXXIV. Bail 689 LXXV. Grand Jury 692 LXXVI. Indictments 700 LXXVII. Continuance 725 LXXVIII. Change of Venue 733 LXXIX. Arraignment 739 LXXX. Trial and Incidents 742 LXXXI. Court ; Attorney 754 LXXXII. Jury, Jurors 759 LXXXIII. Witnesses 781 LXXXIV. Evidence 806 LXXXV. Variance 848 LXXXVI. Instructions 855 X CONTENTS. CHAPTER ' PAGE LXXXVII. Penalty , 873 LXXXVIII. New Trial 880 LXXXIX. Sentence 887 XC. Verdict 895 XCI. Records 907 XCII. Extradition 916 XCIII. Habeas Corpus 924 TABLE OF CASES [References are to Pages.} Ill, 615, Abel V. S., 90 Ala. 631, 362, Abendroth v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 325, Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. (U. S.), 523 924 Abrahams v. Weiller, 87 III. 179, Abshire v. Mather, 27 Ind. 381, Accumulator Co. v. Elec. Storage Co. 53 Fed. 793, Acker, In re, 66 Fed. 295, Acker v. Com^ 94 Pa. St. 284, Ackerman v. S., 7 Wyo. 504, Ackerson v. P., 124 III. 572, Acree v. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 353, Adams, Ex parte, 25 Miss. 886, 429 434 437 Adams v. Adams, 51 N. H. 388, Adams v. P., 25 Colo. 532, Adams v. P., 47 111. 381, 31, 625, Adams t. P., 109 111. 451, 5, 38, 732, Adams v. P., 179 111. 637, Adams y. P., 1 N. Y. 173, Adams v. P., 9 Hun (N. Y.) 89, Adams v. S., 62 Ala. 177, Adams t. S., 28 Fla. 511, Adams v. S., 34 Fla. 185, Adams v. S., 42 Ind. 373, Adams v. S., 99 Ind. 244, Adams v. S., 135 Ind. 571, Adams v. S., 45 N. J. L. 449, Adams v. S., 25 Ohio St. 584, Adams v. S., 29 Ohio St. 412 Adams v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 285, Adams v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 384, 417, Adellberger t. S. (Tex. Cr.), 39 S. W. 103, 422, Adkins y. Com., 98 Ky. 539, Adklnson y. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 296, Adutt, In re, 55 Fed. 376, Agaur y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 464, Agee V. S., 117 Ala. 169, Agee V. S., 64 Ind. 340, Ah Men, Ex parte, 77 Cal. 198, Aholtz y. P., 121 111. 562, Aicardi y. S., 19 Wall. (U. S.) 635, Aiken v. P., 183 III. 215, 789, 825, 831, Albany City Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 372, 44ti, 453, 455, 456, Albertson y. S., 5 Tex. App. 89, Albertson y. The P. I. Nevlus, 48 Fed. 927, Alberty v. U. S., 162 U. S. 499, Albin y. 8., 63 Ind. 598, Albrecht y. P., 78 III. 511, 368, 670, 379, 9, 761, 381 557 925 884 520 452 438 219 896 822 365 445 662 708 884 871 863 181 316 236 740 676 616 776 872 107 747 778 772 568 424 730 515 919 572 265 405 449 787 561 832 462 537 462 628 615 371 Albrecht y. S., 8 Tex. App. 313, Albrecht v. Walker, 73 111. 72, Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., B. Co., 108 Mo. 81, Alden y. S., 18 Fla. 187, Alderman y. P., 4 Mich. 414, 323, Alderman y. S., 57 Ga. 367, Aldinger v. Pugh, 57 Hun 181, Aldrich y. P., 101 111. 19, 187, 189, Aldrieh y. Wright, 53 N. H. 398, 101, Alexander, In re, 59 Mo. 598, Alexander y. Com., 12 Ky. L. Alexander y. Com., 105 Pa. 470, St. 1, 670, 14, Alexander y. P., 96 111. 96, Alexander y. S., 117 Ala. 220, Alexander y. S., 99 Ind. 450, Alexander y. S. (Miss.), 21 So. 923, Alexander y. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 359, Allen, Matter of, 13 Blatehf. 271, Allen y. Allen, 72 Iowa 502, 442, Allen y. P., 77 111. 485, 624, Allen y. P., 82 111. 612, 50, Allen y. E. R. Co., 42 Iowa 683, Allen V. S., 40 Ala. 334, 198, Allen y. S., 60 Ala. 19, Allen y. S., 73 Ala. 23, Allen y. S., 91 Ala. 19, Allen V. S., Ill Ala. 80, 36, Allen V. S., 26 Ark. 333, Allen y. S., 38 Fla. 44, Allen y. S., 91 Ga. 189, Allen V. S., 54 Ind. 461, Allen y. S., 131 Ind. 599, Allen y. S., 61 Miss. 627, Allen y. S., 10 Ohio St. 287, 233, Allen y. S., 42 Tex. 12, Allen y. S., 18 Tex. App. 120, 204, Allen V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 381, Allen V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 24 S. W. 30, Allen y. S., 85 Wis. 22, 897, Allen y. U. S., 164 U. S. 492, Allgood y. S., 87 Ga. 668, Allgood y. S., 95 Tenn. 471, Allis y. U. S., 155 U. S. 117, Allison, In re, 13 Colo. 525, Allison y, Com., 83 Ky. 254, 112, Allison y. Com., 99 Pa. St. 17, Allison V. P., 45 111. 37, 518, 522, 882, Allison V. S., 42 Ind. 354, Allison y. U. S., 160 D. S. 203, AUred y. S., 89 Ala. 112, Almond v. S., 110 Ga. 883, Alsey y. S., 39 Ala. 664, Alston y. S., 109 Ala. 51, Altaway y. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 403, 35S 769 745 697 324 14» 455 619 649 690 565 833 867 350 566 92 208 459 443 696 , 55 432 619 866 746 104 835 679 833 245 776 439 796 235 420 208 79 123 902 2 256 225 859 676 185 25 901 862 36 360 153 120 47 811 (Xi) Xll TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.1 Altschuler v. Algaza, 16 Neb. 631, 522 527 Alvarez v. S., 41 Fla. 532, 41,' 625 AlTord V. Smith, 63 Ind. 58, 567 Amann v. P., 76 III. 188, 753 Ambrose Light, The, 25 Fed. 408, 612 Amer., etc.. Bank v. Gueder, etc., Mfg. Co., 150 III. 336, 137 Amer., etc.. Bank v. Paeschfce Mfg.-Co., 150 111. 336, 807 Amer. Exp. Co. v. P., 133 III. 649, 275 Amos T. S., 83 Ala 1, 814 Amos T. S., 96 Ala. 120, 326 Anderson v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 99, 205 Anderson v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 627, 319 Anderson v. Com., 83 Va. 32,6, 245 Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. '204, 429 lABiderson v. P., 2« 111. App.;317, 914 fAiiderson v. S., ,48 Ala.. 665, 199 Anderson t. S., 65 Ala. 553, 249 .Anderson v. S., 79 Ala. 5, 25 lAnderson v. S., 104 Ala. 83, 544, 798 ^Anderson v. S., 5 Ark. 444, 693 Anderson t. S., 34 Ark. 257, 82 ^Anderson t. S., 32 Fla. 242, 368 iAijderson v.S., 38 Fla. 3, 185, 186, 701 'Aiiderson.y. S., 63 Qa. 675, :639 ^Anderson t. S., 72 Ga. 98, 726, 728, 732, 811 Anderson ,v. S., 28 Ind. 22, 218 jABderson v. S., 104 Ind. 467, 86, 87 Anderson v. S., 25 Neb. 550, 813 'Anderson t. S., 22 Ohio St. 305, 364 Anderson v. S., 40 Tenn. 455, 53 Andersen v. S,, 14 Tex. App. 49, 127 Anderson v. S., 24 Tex. APP- 715, 413 Anderson v. S., 34' Tex. Cr. 546, 860 Anderson v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 83, 545, 553 Anderson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 39 S. W. 1,09, 577,578 Anderson v. S., 2 Wash. 183, 903 Anderson t. S., 41 Wis. 430, 641 Anderson v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24, 830 Anderson v. U. S., 170 U. S. ,481, 18, 42 Andre v. S., 5 Iowa. 389, 65, 544 Andrew v. Andrew, 62 Vt. 495, 449 Andrew v. Catherine, 16 Fla. S30, 520 Andrews v. Andrews, 69 111. 609, 459 Andrews y. Andrews, 2 Johns. Cas. ■ (N. Y.) 109, 451 Andrews v. P., 60 111. 354, 185, 633, 858 Andrews v. P., 117 111. 201, lis, 128, 697, 723, SIO. 811, 813, 898 Andrews v. S., 3 Helsk. (Tenn.) 165, 309, 311, 312, 644, 653 Andrews v. U. S., 162 tJ. S. 420, 556, 603, 606 Aneals v. P., 134 111. 401, 59. 615, 790, 792, 829, 831, 832 Angel V. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 231, 96 Angelo V. P., 96 111. 213, 616, 617, 910 Anonymous, 63 Me. 590, 897 Anson v. P., ,148 111. 497, 248, 249, 258, 263, 902 Anthony v. S., Meigs (Tenn.) STT, 23 Aplin T. Porritt, L. E. 2 Q. B. D7, 223 Applegarth t. S., 89 Md. 140, 275 Appleton V. P.. 171 HI. 479, 14, 43 Archer v. S., 69 Ga. 767, 567 Archer v. S., 106 Ind. 426, 326 Archer v. S., 45 Md. 83. 362 Archibald v. S., 122 Ind. 122, 23, 2S Areola v. S., 4() Tex. Cr. 51, 131 Arismendis v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 54 S. W. 599, 872 Arlen v. S., 18 N. H. 563, 898 Armitage v. S., 13 Ind. 441, 261 Armour Packing Co. v. Snyder,. 84 Fed. 136, 475 Armstrong v. P., 37 III. 462, 896, 897, 902 Armstrong v. P., 70 N. Y. 38, 547, 548, 552 Armstrong v. S., 30 Fla. 170, 622, 834 Armstrong V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 645, 572 Armstrong v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 981, 368 Armstrong v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 1008, " 369 Armstrong v. Van De Vanter, 21 Wash. 682, 393, 923 Armstrong v. Vicksburg, etc., E. Co., 46 La. 1448, 404 Arnett t. S., 40 Tex. Cr. App. 617, 92 Arnold v. Com., 80 Ky. 300, 429,a44fl,'446 Arnold v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1566, ,908 Arnold v. S., 51 Ga. 144, «96 Arnold V. S., 92 Ind. 187, 292 Arnold v. S., 9' Ter. App. 435, 639 Aron T. City of Wausau, 9i8 Wis. 592, 342 Asp V. S., 97 Ala. 5, 4 Arrington v. Com., 87 Va. 96, 870, 379 Arthur (T. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, ,323 Ash V. S., 81 Ala. ,76, 468 Ash V. S., 56 Ga. ,583, 55 Asher v. Ter., 7 (akVa. 1«8, 81 Ashford v. S., 36 Neb. 38, 192, 208, 209 Ashton V. S., 68 Ga. 25, 194 Aszman v. 8., 123 Ind. 347, 618 Atkins T. Hinn^an, 2 <}Um. (III.) 43-7 908 Atkins V. S., 95 Tenn. 474, 565, 638 Atkinson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 424, 716 Atterberry v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 88, 50, 53 Atwood V. Cornell, 28 Mich. 336, 793 Atwood V. S., 59 Kan. 728, -443 Augustine t. S. (Tex. Cr. App. ), 52 S. W. 77, 896 Austin V. Murray, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 121, 646 Austin V. P., 102 111. 261, 910 Austin V. Pickett, 9 Ala. 102, 521 Austjne V. P., 57 111. 239, 93, 812, 820 Austine V. P., 110 111. 250, 86, 732 Avant V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 1073, 311 Averheart v. S., 30 Tex. App. 651, 572 Avirett v. S., 76 Md. 510, 335 Axhelm v. U. S., 9 Okla. 321, 215 Aylesworth v. P., 65 111. 302, 696, 742 Aymette v. S., 2 Hiinmh. (Tenn.) 154, 312 Babcock v. P., 15 Hun (N. Y.) 347, 176 Babe Beard v. U. S., 158 U. S. 550, 626 Baccio V. P., 41 N. Y. 265, 84 Backenstoe v. S., 19 Ohio C. C. 568, 619 Baer v. S. (Neb., 1900), 81 N. W. 856, 91 Baggett T. S., 69 Miss. 625, 187 Bailey v. Cbesley, 64 Mass. 284, 527 Bailey v. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.) 6S8, 311 Bailey V. P., 190 III. 31, 647 Bailey v. S., 58 Ala. 414, 104, 108 Bailey v. S., 99 Ala. 143, 100 Bailey v. S., 26 Ga. 579, 828 Bailey V. S., 52 Ind. 462, ,104 Bailey v. S., 36 Neb. 808, S04 Bailey v. S., 57 Neb. 706, . 87 TABLE OF CASES. Xlll [References are to Pages.'] Bailey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 540, 543, 552, 553 Baily V. Daily, 69 Iowa 77, 445 Bain, Ex parte, 121 U. S. 1, 662, 927 Bain V. S., 61 Ala. 75, 68 Baites V. P., 123 111. 428, 874, 914 Baker v. Com., 10 Ky. L. 746, 672, 725 BaiJer V. Cordon, 86 N. C. 116, 432 Baker v. P., 49 III. 308, 55 Baker v. P., 105 III. 457, 494, 495, 745, 825, 904, 910, 911 Baker v. P., 40 Mich. 411, 44 Baker v. Roberts, 14 Ind. 552, 520 Baker t. S., 58 Ark. 513, 102, 112, 184, 729 Baker v. S., 17 Fla. 406, 108 Baker v. S., 30 Fla. 521, 531, 532, 898 Baker v. S., 82 Ga. 776, 430, 441 Baker v. S., 97 Ga. 453, 339 Baker v. S., Ill Ga. 141, 884 Baker t. S., 134 Ind. 657, 55 Baker t. S., 50 Neb. 202, 332 Baker v. S., 29 Ohio St. 184, 104 Baker v. S., 25 Tex. App. 1, 240 Baker v. S., 47 Wis. Ill, 525, 527 Baker v. S., 65 Wis. 50, 518 Baker v. S., 69 Wis. 32, 523, 524 Baldwin, Ex parte, 69 Iowa 502, 665 Baldwin v. Franks, 120 D. S. 678, 320 Baldwin v. Green, 10 Mo. 410, 658 Baldwin v. Niles, 58 Conn. 496, 463 Baldwin v. S., 126 Ind. 24, 429, 697 Baldwin t. S., 11 Ohio St. 681, 436 Bales V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 517, 535 Ball T. S., 48 Ark. 94, 266 Ball V. S., 50 Ind. 595, 366 Ball v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 214, 788 Ball V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 36 S. W. 448, 862 Ball V. U. S., 140 U. S. 118, 887, 888 Ball V. tr. S., 163 IT. S. 662, 19 Ballard v. S., 31 Fla. 266, 726, 731, 743, 781 Ballard v. S., 19 Neb. 609, 622 Ballard v. Si, 43 Ohio St. 340, 310, 685, 688 Ballard v. S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 674, 50 Ballew V. S., 36 Tex. 98, 910 Ballew V. U. S., 160 U. S. 187, 896 Ballinger, Ex parte, 88 Fed. 781, 613 Ballock V. S., 73 Md. 1, 577 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. t. City of Wheeling, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 57, 430 Bandalow v. P., 90 111. 218, 361, 362, 864 Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 372, 449, 453, 455, 456, 462 Bank of Augusta v. Barle, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519, 649 Barikhead t. S., 124 Ala. 14, 37 Banks, Ex parte, 28 Ala. 89, 690, 691 Banks, In re, 56 Kan. 242, 555 Banks v. City of Sullivan, 78 111. App. 298, 364 Banks v. S., 78 Ala. 14, 411 Banks v. S., 96 Ala. 78, 502 Banks v. S., 89 Ga. 75, 862 Bannon v. U. S., 156 U. S. 464, 316, 327, 714 Banyon v. S., 108 Ga. 49, 596 Baptist V. S., 109 Ga. 546, 343 Barber, In re, 75 Fed. 980, 603 Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen (Mass.) 322, 498 Barber v. P., 17 Hun (N. T.) 366, 177 Barber v. S., 78' Ala. 19, 203 Barber v. S., 13 Fla. 675, , 766 Barber v. S., 50 Md. 161, 512, 513 Barcklay v. Pearson, 3 Rep. 388, 575 Barclay v.- Barclay, 184 111. 471, 446, 456, 458 Barcus v. S., 49 Miss. 17, 60 Barfleld v. S., 29 Ga. 127, 247 Barholt v. Wright, 45 Ohio St. 177, 48 Barker, Ex parte, 87 Ala. 4, 688, 918 Barker v. Com., 90 Va. 820, 543, 549, 550, 552 Barker t. S., 40 Fla. 178, 74, 82 Barker v. Wilford, Kirby (Conn.) 235, 436 Barkley v. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 185, 230 Barkman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 52 S. W. 73, 727 Barlow v. P., 78 N. Y. 377, 135 Barlow v. S., 120 Ind. 56* 282 Barnard v. S., 73 Ga. 803, 309 Barnard v. S., 88 Wis. 656, 82 Barnards v. S., 88 Tenn. 183, 11, 627 Earner v. S., 88 Ala. 204, 83 Barnes v. Circuit Judge, 81 Mich. 374, 437 Barnes v. Com., 101 Ky. 556, 258 Barnes V. P., 18 111. 52, 101, 851 Barnes v. Ryan, 174 Mass. 117, 528 Barnes v. S., 88 Ala. 207, 87 Barnes v. S., 103 Ala. 44, 108 Barnes v. S., 19 Conn. 398, 367 Barnes v. S., 89 Ga. 316, 308 Barnes v. S., 88 Md. 347, 338 Barnes v. S., 40 Neb. 545, 113 Barnes v. S., 36 Tex. 356, 81S Barnes v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 320, 543, 551, 552, 553, 798 Barnesciotta v. P., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 137, 538 Barnett v. Com., 84 Ky. 449, 858 Barnett v. P., 54 III. 330, 9, 23, 24, 42, 672, 673, 786 Barnett v. S., 83 Ala. 40, S3 Barnett v. S., 100 Ind. 171, 96 Barnett v. S., 22 Ind. App. 599, 56 Barnett v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 280, 341 Barney v. P., 22 III. 160, 86, 774 Barnhart v. S., 154 Ind. 177, 203 Barnhouse, In re, 60 Kan. 849, 459 Barnum v. S., 15 Ohio 717, 249 Barnum v. S., 92 Wis. 586, 3.38 Barr v. P., 103 111. 110, 659, 736 Barr v. P., 113 111. 473, 78, 89, 857, 861 Barr v. S., 45 Neb. 458, 54 Barrett v. S., 1 Wis. 175, 903 Barron v. Mayor, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 243, 653 Barrow v. P., 73 111. 258, 693, 694 Barrows v. P., 11 111. 121, 734 Barry, Ex parte, 85 Cal. 603, 435 Barry, In re, 94 Cal. 562, 461 Barry v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 240, 575 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. (TJ. S.) 129 373 Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 609, 782, 789, 828, 839 Bartlett v. S., 28 Ohio St. 669, 167, 773 Bartlett v. S.(Tex. Cr., 1899), 51 S. W. 918, 91 Bartley v. P., 156 111. 241, 697, 740, 750, 811, 812, 875 Bartley v. S., 53 Neb. 310, 142, 143, 150 Barton v. P., 135 111. 405, 160, 175, 179, 825 Barton v. P., 35 111. App. 573, 161 Barton v. S., 29 Ark. 68, 114 XIV TABLE OF CASES. Barton v. S., 99 Ind. 89, Barton v. S., 154 Ind. 670, Barton v. S., 18 Ohio 221, Barton v. S., 23 Wis. 586, Basehleben v. P., 188 111. 261, Bass V. S., 63 Ala. 108, Bass V. S., 136 Ind. 165, Bass V. S., 69 Tenn. 444, Basset v. tl. S., 9 Wall. (U. S.) 39, 890 Bassett v. Abbott, 70 Mass. 69, 527 Bassett v. U. S., 137 U. S. 496, 517 Basye v. S., 45 Neb. 261, S30 Bate Eefrlg. Co. v. Gilett, 24 Fed. 696, 449 Bate Refrlg. Co. v. Glllett, 30 Fed. 683, 442, 462 Bates V. Com., 13 Ky. 132, 731 Bates V. Com., 14 Ky. L. 177, 23 Bates V. S., 31 Ind. 72, 226 Batesou v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31, 911 Batten v. S., 80 Ind. 394, 860 Battle V. S., 74 Ga. 101, 34 Battle V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 24 S. W. 642, 132 Baumer v. S., 49 Ind. 544, 534 Baw V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 24, 727 Bawcom v. S., 27 Tex. App. 620, 59 Baxter v. P., 2 Gilm. (111.) 580, 736 Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 385, 637,638 706, 726, 769, 856, 863, 893, 903 Baxter v. S., 15 Lea (Tenn.) 666, 33 Baxter v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 43 S. W. 87, 132 Bayard v. Passmore, 8 Yeates (Pa.) 438, 435 Baysinger v. P., 115 111. 419, 709 Beach v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 240, 419 Beal V. Nichols, 2 Gray (Mass.) 264, 799 Beal V. S., 99 Ala. 234, 339 Beal T. S., 15 Ind. 378, 112 Beall V. S., 53 Ala. 460, 117, 199 Beals T. Furbish, 39 Me. 469, 527 Bean v. P., 124 111. 576, 74, 83, 787, 884, 885 Bean v. S., 17 Tex. App. 60, 766, 906 Bear t. Cohen, 65 N. C. 611, 4.34 Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 298, 299, 302 304, 305, 489, 540, 542, 778 Beard t. S., 74 Md. 130, 657 Beard v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 348, 760, 779 Beasley v. P., 89 111. 579, 496, 693, 705, 710, 799 Beasley v. S., 59 Ala. 20, 180 Beasley t. S., 138 Ind. 552, 109 Beatty v. S., 61 Miss. 18, 123 Beaty t. S., 82 Ind. 228, 136, 144 Beauflre v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 50. 227 Beaumont v. S., 1 Tex. App. 533, 238 Beaven v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 246, 66, 67 Beavers t. S., 103 Ala. 36, 615 Beavers v. S., 58 Ind. 530, 726 Beaverts v. S., 4 Tex. App. 175, 52 Beck V. S., 72 Ind. 250, 430 Becker v. Com. (Pa.), 8 Cent 388, 118 Becker v. Santer, 89 111. 596, 907 Beckham v. Naeke, 56 Mo. 546, 635 Beckham v. S., 100 Ala. 15, 99 Beckwith v. P., 26 111. 500, 56, 57, 899 Bedee v. P., 73 111. 321, 671, 911, 912 Bedell v. S., 50 Miss. 492, 57 Bedgood v. S., 115 Ind. 275, 88, 440 Heeler, Kx parte (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 857, 929 Beene v. S., 22 Ark. 157, 756 Beers y. Jackson, 103 Mass. 192, 523 IBeferences are to Pages."] Beets V. S., Meigs (Tenn.) 106, 24 Beevers v. S., 103 Ala. 36, 615 Beggs T. S., 55 Ala. 108, 509, 511 Behymer v. S., 95 Ind. 143, _56 Belcher v. S., 125 Ind. 419, 326 Belk V. P., 125 111. 584, 633, 634, 862 Bell, Ex parte, 56 Miss. 282, 890 Bell v. Alexander, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 1 I 886 Bell v. Hansley, 3 Jones (N. C.) 131, 48 Bell v. Mallory, 61 III. 167, 343 Bell V. Senneff, 83 111. 122, 408 Bell V. S., 44 Ala. 393, 662 Bell y. S., 48 Ala. 684, 203, 672, 676, 904 365 913 125 257 631 227 839 193 Bell v. S., 100 Ala. 78, Bell v. S., 115 Ala. 25, Bell V. S., 124 Ala. 94, Bell V. S., 10 Ark. 536, Bell v. S., 41 Ga. 589, Bell V. S., 91 Ga. 227, Bell V. S., 92 Ga. 49, Bell V. S., 42 Ind. 335, Bell V. S., 4 Gill (Md.) 301 Bell T. S., 7 Md. 108, Bell V. S., 72 Miss. 507, Bell V. S., 7 Tex. App. 25, 311 821 522 252, 256 114 360, 361 572 111 932 266 26, 27, 29, 32 110 Bell V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 187, 562 Bell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 366, 562 Bell V. Ter., 8 Okla. 75, 518 Bellamy v. S., 35 Fla. 242, 121 Belote T. S., 36 Miss. 96, 121 Belt V. P., 97 111. 473, 857 Ben V. S., 22 Ala. 9, 671, 708 Ben V. S., 37 Ala. 103, 833 Benedict v. S., 44 Ohio St. 679, 905, 908 Benham v. S., 91 Ind. 82, 524 Benjamin v. S., 105 Ga. 803, 131 Bennefleld v. S., 62 Ark. 365, 230 Bennett v. P., 16 111. 160, 384 Bennett v. P., 96 111. 606, 118, 122, 123, 128, 705, 723, 817, 836 Bennett v. S., 52 Ala. 370, 100, 805 Bennett v. S., 62 Ark. 516, 327 Bennett v. S., 102 Ga. 656, 85 Bennett v. S., 27 Tex. 701, 930 Bennett v. S., 28 Tex. App. 342, 132 Bennett v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 445, 381, 857 Bennett v. Town of Pulaski (Tenn.), 52 S. W. 913, 373 Bennyfield v. Cora., 13 Ky. L. 446, 755 Benson v. Dyer, 69 Ga. 190, 560 Benson y. McMahori, 1S7 U. S. 457, 923 Benson y. S., 68 ASl 544, 697 Benson y. S., 124.^1a. 92, 250, 260 Benson v. S.. 5 Minn. 19, 262 Benson v. U. S., 146 D. S. 325, 395 Benstine y. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 169, 83, 87, 88 Bentley y. S., 32 Ala. 596, 564 Benton v. Com., 91 Va. 782, 196 Benton v. Starr, 58 Conn. 285, 522 Benton y. S., 59 N. J. L. 551, 333, 336, 340 Bergdahl v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 228, 744, 913 Bergen y. P., 17 111. 428, 532, 534, 787, 810, 811 Berger y. P., 86 N. Y. 369, 61 Bergerson y. S., 53 Neb. 752, 192, 208 Bergman, Ex parte, 3 Wyo. 396, 44, 450, 457 Bergman y. P., 177 111. 244, 107 Berkeley y. Com., 88 Va. 1017, 59 Berkenfleld v. P., 191 III. 272, 892 Berkowitz v. U. S., 93 Fed. 452, 315, 669 Berkson y. P., 154 111. 81, 458 Berman v. P., 101 111. 322, 758 TABLE OF CASES. XV [References are to Pages. 2 Berneker t. S:, 40 Neb. 810, 830, 911, 914 Bernlng v. S., 51 Ark. B50, 379 Berry t. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) 15, 815 Berry v. Hill, 6 N. M. 643, 391 Berry v. P., 77 N. T. 588, 302, 305 Berry v. S., 63 Ark. 382, 30 Berry v. S., 92 Ga. 47, 208 Berry v. S., 97 Ga. 202, 159 , Berry v. S., 31 Ohio St. 225, 102, 184, 864 Berry v. S., 27 Tex. App. 483, 338, 341 Berry v. S., 30 Tex. App. 423, 635 Betts V. S., 93 Ind. 375, 304, 305, 538, 539, 541 BevlIIe V. S., 16 Tex. App. 70, 685 Beyer v. P., 86 N. Y. 369, 61 Bias V. TJ. S. (Ind. Ter.), 53 S. W. 471, 2 Bibb V. S., 84 Ala. 13, 565 Bickford v. P., 39 Mich. 209, 201 Bieber v. S., 45 Ga. 569, 185 Biemel v. S., 71 Wis. 444, 755 Bigby V. S., 44 Ga. 344, 504 Bigelow, Ex parte, 113 U. S. 328, 925 Biggerstaff v. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.) 169, 414, 416 Biggs, Ex parte, 64 N. C. 202, 439 Bigham t. S., 59 Miss. 530, 722 Bigham v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 244, 204 Bilansky t. S., 3 Minn. 427, 899 Bill V. P., 14 111. 432, 749 Billard v. Erhart, 35 Kan. 616, 433 Billard v. S., 30 Tex. 367, 116 Billings V. Carver, 54 Barb. (N. T.) 40, 442 Billings V. S., 52 Ark. 303,. 790 Billings V. S., 107 Ind. 54, 742 BilUngsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 520 Bimeler v. Dawson, 4 Scam. (III.) 533, 909 Bindernagle v. S., 60 N. J. L. 307, 304, 305 Blnns V. S., 46 Ind. 311, 25 Bird V. S., 14 Ga. 43, 761 Bird T. S., 110 Ga. 315, 79 Bird V. S., 27 Tex. App. 635, 501 Birdsong v. S., 47 Ala. 68, 762 Birr v. P., 113 111. 648, 379, 383, 797, 851, 859, 862 Biscoe V. S., 67 Md. 6, 812 Biscoe V. S., 68 Md. 294, 906 Bishop, In re, 172 Mass. 35, 930 Bishop V. Nelson, 83 111. 601, 757 Bishop V. Small, 63 Me. 12, 169 Bishop V. S., 55 Md. 138, 263 Bishop V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 25, 133 Bishop V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 S. W. 170, 727, 796 Bissell, In re, 40 Mich. 63, 461 Bissman v. S., 54 Ohio St. 242, 475 Bittick V. S., 40 Tex. 117, 902 Bixbe V. S., 6 Ohio 86, 743 Bizzell, Ex parte, 112 Ala. 210, 927 930 Black, In re, 52 Kan. 64, ' 899 Black V. S., 57 Ind. 109, 852 Black V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 58, 108, 127 Blackburn v. S., 98 Ala. 65, 25 Blackburn v. S., 23 Ohio St. 146, 16, 31, 629, 868 Blackburn v. S., 50 Ohio St. 428, 875 Blackburn v. S., 3 Tex. 153, 57 Blackerby v. P., 5 Gilm. (III.) 267, 665 Black Hawk v. Cotter, 32 Iowa 125, 520 Blackman v. S., 36 Ala. 295, 507 Blackmore v. S. (Ark.), 8 S. W. 940, 728 Blackwell v. S., 67 Ga. 76, 651, 785, 834 Blackwell v. S., 30 Tex. App. 672, 344 Blackwell v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 476, 311 Blackwell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 919, 161 Blackwell v. Thompson, 2 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 348, 587 Blair v. Com., 93 Ky. 493, 901 Blair v. Forehand, 100 Mass. 136, 650 Blair v. S., «1 Ga. 629, 370 Blair V. S., 5 Ohio C. C. 496, 720 Blake v. Blake, 80 111. 525, 445, 464 Blake v. P., 80 111. 11, 442, 443, 458 Blake v. P., 109 111. 504, 645 Blake v. P., 161 111. 74, 431, 454 Blake v. U. S., 71 Fed. 286, 406 Blakemore v. Dolan, 50 Ind. 194, 658 Blalock V. Randall, 76 111. 225, 752 Blanchette v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 507 231 Bland' V. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 366, 266 Blaney v. S., 74 Md. 153, 699 Blanfus v. P., 69 N. Y. 109, 782 Blanks v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1031, 734 Bledsoe v. S., 64 Ark. 474, 425 Bleimer v. P., 76 111. 271, 708, 711 Blewitt v. S., 34 Miss. 606, 566 Blight V. Fisher, Peters C. C. 41, 431, 446 Blitz V. U. S., 153 U. S. 308, 593 Bloch, In re, 87 Fed. 981, 917 Bloom V. P., 23 Colo. 416, 435, 438, 447, 463 Bloom V. S., 68 Ark. 336, 842 Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. 521, 326, 329, 824 Bloomhuff V. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 205, 302 Bloss T. Tobey, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 325, 235 Blount V. S., 49 Ala. 381, 817, 896 Blount V. S., 76 Ga. 17, 129 Bluff V. S., 10 Ohio St. 547, 263 Blum V. S., 20 Tex App. 592, 160 Bluman v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 43, 245 Blume V. S., 154 Ind. 343, 697, 785, 834, 910 Blumeuberg v. S., 55 Miss. 528, 384 Blush, In re, 5 Kan. App. 879, 448 Blyew T. Com., 91 Ky. 200, 675 Board, etc., of Auburn v. Merchant, 103 N. T. 143, 378, 807 Board of Com'rs v. Lee, 3 Colo. App. 177, 796 Board of Trustees v. Schroeder, 58 111. 353, 682 Boarman v. S., 66 Ark. 65, 282, 284 Boatwright v. S., 103 Ga. 430, 245 Bobbitt V. S., 87 Ala. 91, 163 Bobel V. P., 173 111. 26, 563, 568, 573, 655, 710 Bodenhamer v. S., 60 Ark. 10, 583 Bodiford v. S.. 86 Ala. 67, 503 Bodkin v. S., 20 Ind.. 281, 907 Boes V. S., 125 Ind. 205, 71 Bogart V. Elee. Supply Co., 23 Blatchf. 552, 446 Boger V. S., 19 Tex. App. 91, 505 Boggs V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 770, 842 Bohanan v. S., 18 Neb. 57, , 48, 771 xyi TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages. "i Bohannon v. Com., 8 Bush (Ky.) 481, 627 Bohlmanu v. S., 98 Wis. 617, 92 BolaniJ V. P., 19 Hun (N. Y.) 80, 125 Bolduc T. Randall, 107 Mass. 121, 370 Bolen V. P., 184 111. 339, 532, 704, 794, 795, 797 Bolen V. S., 26 Ohio St. 371, 635 Boles V. S., 58 Ark. 35, 217 Boles^ V. S., 86 Ga. 255, 308, 309 BoUig, Ex parte, 31 111. 96, 430 Boiling V. S., 98 Ala. 80, 115 Boiling V. S., 54 Ark. 588, 622 Bollinger v. Com., 98 Ky. 574, 560 Bolln V. S., 51 Neb. 581, 153 Bolzer v. P., 129 III. 122, 36, 618, 627 Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 422, 11, 42, 624, 717, 779, 845, 850, 865, 901 Bond V. Bond, 69 N. C. 97, 434 Bond V. Com., 83 Va. 581, 244 Bond T. P., 39 111. 27, 857, 896 Bondurant v. S. (Ala.), 27 So. 775, 14, 38 Bone y. S., 63 Ala. 185, 563 Bones v. S., 117 Ala. 146, 289 Bonker v. P., 37 Mich. 4, 41, 633, 796 Bonnard v. S., 25 Tex. App. 173, 824 Bonnell v. S., 64 Ind. 498, 172, 900 Bonney v. S., 2 Idaho 1015, 338 Bonsall v. S., 35 Ind. 460, 216 Booker v. S. (Miss.), 9 So. 355, 132 Bookhout V. S., 66 Wis. 415, 526, 529 Boon V. McGucken, 67 Hun 251, 463 Booire V. P., 148 111. 440, 717, 651, 698 Boose V. S., 10 Ohio St. 575, 202, 898 Booth V. P., 186 III. 43, 563, 646 Booth V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 600, 256, 260 Bork V. P., 91 N. Y. 5, 135, 138 Borrego v. Ter., 8 N. M. 446, 18, 615 Borrelll v. P., 164 111. 559, 760, 761, 762 Borum v. S., 66 Ala. 468, 200 Boscow V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 390, 165 Boston, etc., E. E. v. S., 32 N. H. 215, 712 713 Boswell V. S., 92 Ga. 581, ' 207 Boswell V. S., Ill Ind. 47, 678 Boulden v. S., 102 Ala. 78, 24, 27 Boutte V. Bmmer, 43 La. 980, 685 Bow V. P., 160 111. 440, 128, 219, 796, 817 Bowen v. S., 106 Ala. 178, 203 Bowen v. S., 108 Ind. 411, 742 Bowen v. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 45,^ 169 Bowen v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 18 S. W. 464, .341 Bower v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440, 434 Bower v. S., 41 Miss. 578, 177 Bowers v. Green, 1 Scam. (III.) 42, 464, 914 Bowers v. P., 17 111. 374, 403, 405 Bowers v. S., 29 Ohio St. 542, 543, 548 Bowers v. S., 24 Tex. App. 542, 95, 328 Bowers v. Wood, 143 Mass. 182, 520 Bowler v. S., 41 Miss. 576, 176 Bowles V. S. (Miss.), 14 So. 261, 283 Bowles V. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 360, 662 Bowling T. Com., 7 Ky. L. 821, 52 Bowling V. S., 13 Tex. App. 338, 127 Bowman v. Com., 96 Ky. 8, 735 Bowman v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 14, 379 Boxley v. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 649, 92 Boyce v. P., 55 N. Y. 644, 543, 550 Boyd V. Com., 77 Va. 52, 713 Boyd V. S., 88 Ala. 169, 53, 59 Boyd v. S., 33 Pla. 316, 726 Boyd V. S., 17 Ga. 194, 41 Boyd V. S., 14 Lea (Tenn.) 161, 629 Boyd V. S., 94 Teun. 505, 828 Boyd V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 Si W. 157, IBS' Boyd T. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 649, 683i 823 Boyer v. Coffl:, 14 Ky. L. 167, 210 Boyett V. S., 26 Tex. App. 689, 902 Boyett V. Vaughan, 89 N. C. 27, 442 Boykin v. P., 22 Colo. 496, 865 Boykin v. S., 40 Fla. 484, 282 Boyle, In re (Idaho), 57 Pac. 706, 928 Boyle, In re, 190 Pa. St. 572, 373 Boyle V. S., 105 Ind. 469, 33 Boyle V. S., 6 Ohio C. C. 163, 33» Boyle V. S., 61 Wis. 440, 30, 821 Boyle V. Smithman, 146 Pa. St. 255, 794 Boyles V. Com., 2 S. & E. (Pa.) 40, 499 Bozeman v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 503, 92 Bozier v. S., 5 Tex. App. 220, 162 Bracey v. S., 64 Miss. 17, 401 Bracken v. S., Ill Ala. 68, 544, 545,550 Brackenridge v. S., 27 Tex. App. 513, 401 Bradford v. Panl, 18 Me. 30, 528 Bradford v. S., 104 Ala. 68, 58ft Bradford v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 632, 344 Bradham v. S., 41 Fla. 541, 76& Bradlaugh T. Queen, L. E. 3 Q. B. D. 607, 55T Bradley v. Obear, 10 N. H. 477, 178 Bradley v. P., 8 Colo. 599, 655 Bradley v. S., 32 Ark. 722, 680 Bradley v. S., 20 Fla. 738, 118, 187, 708 Bradley v. S., Ill Ga. 168, 441 Bradshaw v. P., 153 111. 159, 62, 63,. 65 Bradshaw v. S;, 17 Neb. 147, 746, 763, 866, 911 Brady v. S., 21 Tex. App. 659, 135 Brady v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 621, 230 Braeutigam v. S;, 63 N. J. L. 38, 419 Braithwaite v. S., 28 Neb. 832, 119, 155- Bram t. U. S., 168 U. S. 532, 812 Branch v. S., 41 Tex. 622, 224, 282' Branch v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 304, 50' Brands v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 17, 26 Brandensteln v. Way, 17 Wash. 293, 139' Brandt t. Com., 94 Pa. St. 290, 638 Branham v. Stallings, 21 Colo. 211, 575 Brannon v. S., 23 Tex. App. 428, 310 Branson v. Com., 92 Ky. 330, 120, 205, 209' Brantigam v. While, 73 111. 562. 371' Brantley v. S., 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 468, 694 Bravo v. S., 20 Tex. App. 188, 212' Bray v. S., 41 Tex. 204, 629- Brazee v. S., 9 Ind. App. 618, 278' Brazleton v. S., 66 Ala. 96, 281 Breckinridge t. Com., 97 Ky. 267, 218 Breese v. S., 12 Ohio St. 146, 200 Brennan v. P., 15 111. 518, 42, 316, 327, 672, 720, 736, 848 868, 869, 881, 906 Brennan v. P., 110 111. 537, 201 Brennon v. S., 25 Ind. 403, 214, 217 Bressler v. P., 117 111. 444, 642, 757, 786, 789, 790, 800, 845 D ^^ T. .^ „„ 865, 869, 888 Brett V. Brett, 33 Hun (N. Y.) 547, 462 Brevaldo v. S., 21 Fla. 789, 507 Brewster v. P., 183 111. 146, 72, 777 Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 463, u . ,, ™ , 615, 616 Brickley v. Weghorn, 71 Ind. 497 912 Brick Pr. Church v. Mayor, etc., of „ N. Y., 5 Cowen 538, 652 Bridges v. S., 110 Ga. 246, 152 Br dgewater v. S., 153 Ind. 560, 41 Briffltt V. S., 58 Wis, 39, ' 361 rfAfiLE 6^" CAS^S. XVll IReferenoes are to PAgei."] Briggs T. Com., 82 Va. 554, 688 Brightwell v. S., 41 Ga. 482, 240 Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40, 445, 464, 465 Brintley v. S., 58 Ga. 296, 835 Brinson v. S., 89 Ala. 105, 366 Bristow ▼. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 379, 406 Britt v. S., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 45, 215, 216 Britton V. S., 54 Ind. 535. 528 Brizendine v. S., 103 Tenn. 677, 464 Brobston v. Cahill, 64 111. 358, 889 Brock V. Com., 92 Ky. 183, 23 Brock T. S., 95 Ga. 474, 544 Bromley v. P., 27 111. 20, 132 Bromley v. P., 150 111. 297, 211, 212, 213, 852, 881 Brooke v. P., 23 Colo. 375, 127, 842 Brooks V. Bruyn, 40 111. 64, 913 Brooks V. Com., 98 Ky. 143, 835 Brooks V. Com., 100 Ky. 194, 36, 728, 835 Brooks V. Com., 61 Pa. St. 352, 687 Brooks V. Fleming, 53 Tenn. 331, 464 Brooks V. P., 14 Colo. 413, 657, 874 Brooks V. P., 88 111. 328, 664, 928 Brooks V. P., 49 N. Y. 436, 217, 219 Brooks V. S., 51 Ga. 612, 245 Brooks V. S., 96 Ga. 353,. 120, 205 Brooks V. S., 67 Miss. 577, 292 Brooks V. S., 35 Ohio St. 46, 104 Brooks V. S., 29 Tex. App. 582, 426 Brooks V. S. (Tex .Cr.), 27 S. W. 141, 108 Brooks V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 924, 781 Brosnahan, In re, 4 McCrary 1, 475, 925 Brothers v. S., 22 Tex. App. 447, 123 Brotherton v. P., 75 N. Y. 159, 622, 696, 746 Brown, Ex parte, 68 Cal. 176, 689 Brown, Ex parte, 97 Cal. 83, 52, 434 Browil V. Brown, 4 Ind. 627, 437, 465 Brown v. Brown, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 573, Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. St. 321, 23, 25, 26, 762, 786, , 86 Va. 466, 87 Va. 215, , 89 Va. 379, 61 L. J. M. C. 110, 711, 248, 149, Brown v. Com. Brown v. Com., Brown v. Com. Brown v. Foot, Brown v. Moore, 61 Cal. 432, Brown v. P., 20 Colo. 161, Brown v. P., 9 111. 439, Brown v. P., 19 111. 612, Brown v. P., 39 111. 408, Brown v. P., 66 111. 346, Brown t. P., 86 111. 239, Brown v. P., 173 111. 36, 114, Brown v. P., 36 Mich. 203, Brown v. P., 39 Mich. 37, Brown v. Perkins, 12 Gray (Mass.) 89, Brown v. Rice, 57 Me. 55, 889 Brown v. S., 46 Ala. 183,' Brown v. S., 47 Ala. 47, Brown v. S., 52 Ala. 345, Brown v. S., 79 Ala. 51, Brown v. S., 105 Ala. 117, Brown v. S., 120 Ala. 342, Brown v. S. (Ala.), 25 So. Brown v. S., 28 Ark. 126, Brown v. S., 40 Fla. 459, Brown v. S. (Fla.), 27 So. 869, Brown v. S., 28 Ga. 200, Brown v. S., 40 Ga. 689, Brown v. S., 59 Ga. 456, Brown t. S., 61 Ga. 311, hughes' C. L. — ii 654 802 13 245 242 475 434 106 250 429 628 850 253 156 83 118 491 890, 891, 907 291 876 234 130 675 221 217 216, 629 772, 773 531, 745 8 562 209 205 182, Brown V. Brown V. Brown v. Brown V. Brown v. Brown v. Brown v. Brown v. Brown v. Brown v. S., Brown Brown 72 G!a. 211, 311 76 Ga. 623, 7,4 95 Ga. 481, ■^9 104 Ga. 736, 58» Brown v. 8., 1()9 Ga. 570, «71' Brown v. S., 16 Ind. 496, 662; Brown v. S., 70 Ind. 576, SIS- Brown v. S., 76 Ind. 85, 227; Brown v. S., 105 Ind. 385, 89T Brown v. S., Ill Ind. 441, 896^ Brown V. S., 147 Ind. 28, S- S., 14 Ind. App. 24,, ,^ 478i S., 72 Md. 468, 63, 6B, 61, »T S., 32 Miss. 442, 25 S., 57 Miss. 424, 768. S., 72 Miss. 95, 77, 87, 89, 208, 82T, 828 49 N. J. L. 61, 299, 300, 381, 566 S., 62 N. J. h. 666, 764 S., 18 Ohio St. 496; 142 153 737 Brown v. S., 26 Ohio St. 176, ' ' 234 Brown v. S., 29 Tex. 503, ■, 176 Brown v. S., 2 Tex. Apt>. I8&, 2fl» Brown v. S., 15 Tex. App. 581, 185 Brown V. S., 23 Tex. App. 214, 154 Brown v. S. (Tex. App.), 19 S. W. , 898 13'' Brown v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 104, j;60 Brown v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 597, 35& Brown v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 1079, ,.311 Brown' v. Town ol Social Circle, 105 Ga. 834, 372 Brown v. U. S., 150 U, S. 93, 327: Brown v. U. S. (Ind. Ter., 1*99), 52 S. W. 56, . ., 672 Brownell v. P., 38 Hlch. 732, 13, 833 Browning v. Abraihs, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 172, -V &20 Broyles v. S., 47 Ind. 251, 526 Broznack v. S., 109 Ga. 514, 164, 180 Brugh V. Shanks, 5 Leigh (Va.), 598, J(86 Brule, In re, 71 Fed. 943, , 438 Brumback v. German Nat. Bank, 46 Neb. 540, 766 Brunson v. S., 124 Ala. 37, 3S Bryan v. Harrow, 27 Iowa 494, 900 Bryan v. S., 74 Ga. 393, 207 Bryant v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 790, 176 Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 434, 516- Bryant v. S., 116 Ala. 445, 11'2; ii<> Bryant v. S., 41 Ark. 359, 5S; Bryant v. S., 62 Ark. 459, . , 3SS Bryant v. S., 34 Fla. 291, 901, 902 Bryant v. S., 60 Ga. 358, 20'4 Bryant v. S., 80 Ga. 272, 26 Bryant v. S., 7 Wyo. 311, '^68 Bryant V. TJ. S., 167 TJ. S. 104, 92S Buchanan, In re, 146 N. Y. 264, 650 Buchanan v. S., 55 Ala. 154, 502 Buchanan v. S., 59 Ind. 1, 444, 7.97 Buchanan v. S., 24 Tex. App. 195, 194 Buchanan v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 339, 565 Buchanan v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 52 S. W. 769, 75 Buck V. Buck, 60 111. 105, 430, 442, 443, 452 Buck V. Com., 90 Pa. St. 110, 401 Buck V. S.. 1 Ohio St. 51, 561 Buck V. S., 61 N. J. L. 525, 38.'J Buckalew v. S., 62 Ala. 334, 575 Buekalew v. S., 11 Tex. App. 352, 167 Buckley, Ifi re, 69 Cal. 1, 452 : xvm TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.] Bueklln v. S., 20 Ohio 18, 830 Buckner v. Com., 14 Bush (Ky.) 601, 899 Buckrice v. P., 110 111. 33, 653, 667, 762 Buel V. S., 104 Wis. 132, 865 Buel V. Street, 9 Johns. (N. T.) 443, 465 Bueno v. P., 1 Colo. App. 232, 85 Bueno v. S., 40 Fla. 160, 577 Bugg V. Com., 18 Ky. L. 844, 860 Ball V. S., 80 Ga. 704, 285 Bullard v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 270, 108 Bulliner v. P., 95 111. 394, 746, 795, 796, 884 Bullock V. Knox, 96 Ala. 195, 526 Bulson V. P., 31 111. 415, 679 Bunckley v. S., 77 Miss. 540, 817 Bundiek v. Com., 97 Va. 783, 210 Bunflll V. P., 154 111. 647, 61, 62 Buntain v. S., 15 Tex. App. 484, 211 Burdick v. Marshall, 8 S. D. 308, 455 Burdick v. P., l49 III. 600, 648, 649, 650 Burgen v. Straughan, 30 Ky. 583, 518, 520 Burger v. S., 34 Neb. 397, 236 Burgess v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 9, 896 jBurke, Ex parte, 59 Cal. 6, 353 Burke v. Burpo, 75 Hun 568, 527 Burke V. P., 148 111. 75, 214, 216, 747 'OSurke v. P., 23 111. App. 36, 352 ,Burke v. S., 66 Ga. 157, 797 Burke v. S., 74 Ga. 372, 105 Burke v. S., 47 Ind. 528, 441 Burke v. S., 34 Ohio St. 79, 155 .Burke v. Ter., 2 Okla. 499, 435, 446, 453 Burkhart v. S., 18 Ter. App. 618, 755 JBurks V. S., 117 Ala. 148, 283 Burks V. S., 92 Ga. 461. 210 IBurnett v. S., 87 Ga. 622, 729 Burnett v. S., 92 Ga. 474, 362 Burnett v. S., 72 Miss. 994, 382 Burnett v. S., 60 N. J. L. 255, 136 Burnett v. S., 62 N. J. L. 510, 146 Burnett v. S., 14 Tex. 455, 908 Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray (Mass.) 226, 429 burnham v. S., 37 Fla. 827, 336 Burns v. Com., 129 Pa. St. 138, 70 ■JBnrns y. P., 1 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 182, 671 ; Burns v. S., 49 Ala. 370, 746, 816, 835, 909 IBums V. S., 80 Ga. 544, 52 .Burns v. S., 35 Tex. 724, 119 Burrell v. S., 18 Tex. 713, 24 Burris v. Court, 48 Neb. 179, 525 Burrow v. S., 12 Ark. 65, 165, 166 Burrows, In re, 83 Kan. 675, 457 Burrows v. S., 84 Ind. 529, 208 Burrows v. TJnwln, 3 C. & P. 310, 870 Burst V. S., 89 Ind. 133, 310 Burt T. S., 23 Ohio St. 394, 83, 791 Burton v. S., 107 Ala. 108, 813, 823, 860 Burton v. S., 16 Tex. App. 156, 540 Bush V. Chenault, 12 Ky. L. 249, 450 Bush v. Com., 78 Ky. 271, 5 Bush V. S., 47 Neb. 642, 865 Bush V. S., 6 Tex. App. 422, 290 Bushman v. Com., 138 Mass. 507, 118 Buskett, Ex parte, 106 Mo. 602, 573 Bussey v. P., 58 Kan. 679, 61 Bussey v. S., 71 Ga. 100, 216 Butler V. P., 2 Colo. 295, 437 Butler V. P., 125 111. 641, 3, 15, 316 Butler V. P., 4 Den. (N. Y.) 68, 212 Butler V. S., 91 Ala. 87, 117 Butler V. S., 35 Fla. 246, 189 Butler V. S., 92 Ga. 601, 628 Butler V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 551, 417 Butler V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 444, __ ^ 426 Butler V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 46, 423 Butler V. Washburn, 25 N. H. 251, 468 Butterfleld v. O'Connor, 3 Ohio D. E. 34, 456 Byrd v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 630, 338 Byrne v. S., 12 Wis. 519, 591 Byrnes v. P., 37 Mich. 515, 201 Cable V. S.. 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 531, 301 Cady V. Com., 10 Gratt (Va.) 776, 261 CafEey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 198, 247 Caha V. U. S., 152 U. S. 211, 412 Cahill V. P., 106 111. 621, 684, 687 Cahn V. S., 110 Ala. 56, 298, 299, 300, 302, 537 Caidenas v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 40 S. W. 980, 81 Cain T. S., 58 Ark. 43, 176 Cain V. S., 20 Tex. 355, " 654 Calcoat V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 245, 595 Caldwell v. Pj, 67 111. App. 869, 565 Caldwell v. S., 55 Ala. 133, 876 Caldwell v. S., 59 Tenn. 429, 103 Caldwell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 306, 132 Calhoun v. Thompson, 56 Ala. 166, 440 Calkins v. S., 14 Ohio St. 222, 631 Calkins v. S., 18 Ohio St. 366, 130, 138, 910 Calkins v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 251, 148 Call V. Pike, 68 Me. 217, 452 Callaghan v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 536, 303 Callahan v. S., 63 Ind. 198, 543, 546, 547 Callahan v. S., 21 Ohio St. 306, 3, 48 Callison v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 211, 79, 507 Calloway v. S., Ill Ga. 832, 121 Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. (U. S.) 515 745 Cameron, Matter of, 44 Kan. 64, 461 Cameron v. McEoberts, 3 Wheat. (TJ. S.) 591, 907 ■Campbell v. Com., 88 Ky. 402, 628 Campbell v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 187, 782 Campbell v. P., 16 III. 17, 36, 54, 617, 624, 861 Campbell v. P., 109 III. 576, 190, 670, 675, 749, 862 Campbell v. P., 159 111. 26, 809, 810, 836 Campbell v. P., 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 636, 419 Campbell v. Porter, 162 U. S. 478, 745 Campbell v. Quinlan, 3 Scam. (III.) 288, 657 Campbell v. S., 16 Ala. 144, 876 Campbell v. S., 55 Ala. 89, 302, 537 Campbell v. S., 38 Ark, 509, 33 Campbell v. S., 11 Ga. 374, 24 Campbell v. S., 154 Ind. 309, 173 Campbell v. S. (Miss.), 17 So. 441, 186 Campbell v. S., 35 Ohio St. 70, 139, 140 Campbell v. S., 28 Tex. App. 44, 310, 311 Campbell v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 182, 260 Campbell v. Waite, 88 Fed. 102, 924 Canadian Bank v. McCrea, 106 III. 289, 249, 655 Canale v. P., 177 111. 219, 515 Cancemi v. P., 18 N. Y. 128, 776 Cannady v. P., 17 111. 159, 376, 702 Canney v. S., 19 N. H. 135, 714 Cannon v. P., 141 111. 283, 12, 14, 798, 802, 861, 862 Cannon v. S., 60 Ark. 564, 17 Cannon v. S., 18 Tex. App. 172, 127 TABLE OP CASES. XIX IReferences are to Pages.1 Cannon v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 351, 624 Cannon v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 351, 835 Canter v. S., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 349, 166, 167 Canterberry v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 522, 313 Cantrill v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 356, 403, 405 Cantwell v. P., 138 111. 602, 733, 734 Carberry v. P., 39 111. App. 506, 483 Card v. S., 109 Ind. 415, 329 Carden v. S., 89 Ala. 130, 113 Cardwell v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 496, 37 Cargill V. Com., 93 Ky. 578, 66 Carl V. S., 87 Ala. 17, 361, 366, 380 Carl V. S., 125 Ala. 89, 718 Carle v. P., 12 111. 285, 663 Carlisle t. S., 73 Miss. 387, 547, 755 Carlisle v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 365, 621 Carll, Ex parte, 10& U. S. 521, 925 Carlton t. Carlton, 44 Ga. 216, 443 Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 615, 617, 807, 809, 818, 842, 845, 846, 847, 865 Carlton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 21'3 301 Carman t. Emerson, 71 Fed. 264, 437 Carmichael v. S., 12 Ohio St. 553, 511 Carnell v. S., 85 Md. 1, 159, 178 Carney v. S., 84 Ala. 7, 286 Carpenter, Ex parte, 64 Cal. 267, 419 Carpenter y. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 148, 915 Carpenter v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 197, 56, 57, 60, 899 Carpenter v. P., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603, 63, 66, 67 Carpenter v. S., 62 Ark. 286, 694, 790 ■ Carpenter v. S,, 4 How. (Miss.) 163, 662 Carr y. S., 104 Ala. 4, 141, 148, 807, 919 Carr y. S., 34 Ark. 448, 309, 311, 314 Carr v. S., 43 Ark. 99, 327, 684, 789, 816 Carr v. S., 96 Ga. 284, 621, 628 Carr y. S., 135 Ind. 1, 47, 829 Carreker v. S., 92 Ga. 471, 123 Carroll y. Com., 84 Pa. St. 107, 329 Carroll y. P., 136 111. 457, 456, 807, 809, 810, 847 Carroll y. S., 23 Ala. 28, 4 Carroll y. S., 63 Md. 551, 364 Carroll y. S., 5 Neb. 31, 768, 836 Carroll y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 99, 216 Carrotti v. S., 42 Miss. 334, 501 Carrow y. P., 113 111. 550, 385, 682, 769 Carson y. S., 69 Ala. 235, 366 Carter v. Com., 96 Va. 791, 438 Carter y. Kilbnrn, 8 Ky. 463, 619 Carter y. S., 55 Ala. 181, 591 Carter y. S., 107 Ala. 146, 555 Carter y. S., 53 Ga. 326, 143 Carter v. S,, 106 Ga. 372, 233 Carter y. S., 2 Ind. 617, 838 Carter v. S., 36 Neb. 481, 789 Carter y. S., 18 Tex. App. 573, 225, 283 Carter v. S., 23 Tex. App. 508, 125 Carter y. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 345, 693, 746 Carter y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 696, 426 Carter y. S.', 20 Wis. 647, 898 Carter y. Sutherland, 52 Mich. 597, 53 Carter y. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 693, 746 Cartwright, In re, 114 Mass. 230, 429, 432, 441, 445, 456, 461 Cartwright y. McGown, 121 111. 388, 510 Caruth y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 778, 78 Caruth y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 S. W. 532, 76 Caruthers y. S., 74 Ala. 406, 395 Caryer y. U. S., 164 U. S. 694, 33, 34 Carwile y. S., 35 Ala. 392, 297 Cary y. S., 76 Ala. 78, 685 Casey y. S., 20 Neb. 138, 884 Cash V. S., 2 Tenn. 198, 293 easily y. S.. 32 Ind. 66, 160, 171 Casper y. S., 47 Wis. 535, 322 Castillo y. S., 29 Tex. App. 127, 69 Castillo y. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 145, 83, 84 Castlin V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 827, 745 Caswell y. Caswell, 120 111. 377, 662 Cathey v. S., 23 Tex. App. 492, 308 Cathron y. S., 40 Fla. 468, 512 Caudle y. S., 34 Tex. Cr. App. 26, 84 Caye y. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 335, 494 Cawley y. S., 37 Ala. 152, 705 Cearfoss y. S., 42 Md. 403, 364 Central XJ. Tel. Co. y. S., 110 Ind. 203, 433, 912 Cerns y. Ter., 3 Wyo. 270, 426 Chadwick, In re, 109 Mich. 588, 435, 439 ChatFee y. Soldan, 5 Mich. 242, 751 Chalk y. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 116, 817 Chamberlain y. P., 23 N. Y. 85, 441, 528, 794 Chamberlin, In re (Kan.), 61 Pac. 805, 931 Chambers y. P., 105 III. 417, 786, 844, 861, 862 Chambers v. S., 77 Ala. 80, 572 Champers y. S., 14 Ohio St. 437, 48, 296 Chandler, Ex parte, 114 Ala. 8, 926 Channell y. S., 109 Ga. 150, 11 Chapel y. Hull, 60 Mich. 167, 403, 459, 462 Chapin y. P., 57 111. App. 577, 447 Chapman y. Chapman, 129 III. 390, 837 Chapman y. Com., 5 Whar. (Pa.) 427, 240, 241 Chapman y. S., 78 Ala. 463, 46, 49 Chapman y. S., 100 Ga. 311, 361, 366 Chapman y. S., 109 Ga. 157, 858 Chapman y. S., 2 Head (Tenn.) 36, 160 Charlon y. S., 106 Ga. 400, 731 Chase y. P., 40 111. 357, 622, 773 Chastang y. S., 83 Ala. 29, 314 Chatham y. S., 92 Ala. 47, 618 Chayannah y. S., 49 Ala. 396, 575 Chayez y. Ter., 6 N. M. 455, 127 Cheadle y. S., 110 Ind. 301, 429, 435, 439, 449 Cheatham y. S., 59 Ala. 40, 240 Cheatham y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 565, 132 Cheek y. Com., 100 Ky. 1, 298, 299, 300, 560 Cheek y. S., 35 Ind. 492, 31 Cheeseman, Matter of, 49 N. J. L. 115, 435 Cheney y. S., 109 Ga. 503. 92 Chenowith y. Com., 11 Ky. L. 561, 680 Cherry y. S., 68 Ala. 29, 68 Chesnut y. P., 21 Colo. 512, 116 Chess V. Chess, 17 S. & E. (Pa.) 409, 78T Chezem y. S., 56 Neb. 496, 132 Chicago Packing Co. y. City of Chicago, 88 III. 221, 372 Chicago Planing Mill Co. y. Mer- chants' Nat. Bank, 97 III. 294, 908 XX TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages."] Chicago, etc., E. Co. t. Adler, 56 111. 3447 ■ ■ .768 Chidester v. S., 25 Ohio St. 433, 250, 256 Childers v. S., 87 Tex. Cr. 392, 727 Childress v. S., 86 Ala. 77, 238, 708 Childs V. S., 15 Ark. 204, 297 Chilton T. P., 66 111. 503, 52.9 Chipman v. P., 24 Colo. 520, 381 Chlsm V. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 399, 79 Chivarrio v. S., 15 Tex. App. 330, 708 Choice T. S., 31 Ga. 424, 835 Chrisman v. S., 18 Neb. 107, 394, 396 Christian v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 252, 205 Christian v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 376, 314 Christian Jensen Co., In re, 128 N. Y. 550, 431 Christopher v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 852, 563, 566, 568 Church V. English, 81 III. 442, 908, 913 Church, etc., v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1, 511 Churchwell v. S., 117 Ala. 124, 113 Chute V. S., 19 Minn. 271, 448, 798. 844 City of Bloomington v. Shrock, 110 111. 221, 835, 838 City of Chicago v. Netcher, 183 III. 104, 372 City of Chicago v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 126 111. 280, 655 City of Elk Point v. Vaughn, 1 Dak. 113, 372 City of Faribault v. Wilson, 34 Minn. 254, 650, 721 City of Gallatin v. Tarwater, 143 Mo. 40, 291 City of Grand Rapids v. Williams, 112 Mich. 247, 292 City of Lincoln Center v. Linker, 5 Kan. App. 242, 376 City of Lincoln Center v. Linker, 6 Kan. App. 369, 376 City of Mexico, The, 28 Fed. 148, 612 City of Monmouth v. Popel, 183 111. 634, 374 City of Philadelphia v. Campbell, 11 Phil. (Pa.) 163, 685 City of St. Joseph v. Harris, 59 Mo. App. 122, 293 City of St. Louis v. Babcock, 156 Mo. 148, 291, 746 City of Topeka v. Hempstead, 58 Kan 328 357 Civil Eights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 653 Claassen v. U. S., 142 U. S. 140, 151 Clantbn v. S., 96 Ala. Ill, 889 Clapp V. Lathrop, 23 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 423 453 Clapp V. ^., 94 Tenn. 186, 825 Clare v. P., 9 Colo. 122, 642 Clare v. S., 30 Md. 165, 693 Clark, Ex parte, 110 Cal. 405, 926 Clark, In re, 125 Cal. 388, 457 Clark V. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 454, 525 Clark V. Burke, 163 111. 334, 433, 434 Clark V. Com., 16 Ky. L. 703, 140 Clark v. Com., 29 Pa. St. 129, 928 Clark V. Com., 123 Pa. St. 555, 859 Clark V. Com., 90 Ta. 360, 5 Clark V. Lake St. Clair, etc.. Ice Co., 24 Mich. 508, 491 Clark V. P„ 1 Scam. (111.) 119, 239, 735 Clark V. P., Breese (III.) 340, 429, 461 Clark V. P., 31 111. 481, 820 Clark T. P., Ill 111. 404, 132, 643 Clark V. P., 178 111. 37, 783 70S 3, 802, 913 49 842 529 518, 519, 726 868 105, 197 879 884 531, 535 382 Clark V. S., 19 Ala. 552, Clark V. S., 78 Ala. 474, Clark V. S., 84 Ga. 577, Clark V. S., 110 Ga. 911, Clark V. S., 125 Ind. 1, Clark V. S., 41 Neb. 370, Clark V. S., 12 Ohio 494, Clark V. S., 86 Tenn. 511, Clark V. S., 3 Tex. App. 338, Clark V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 30, Clark V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 179, Clark V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 127, Clarke, Ex parte, 126 Cal. 235, 434, 926 Clarke v. May, 2 Gray (Mass.) 410, 682 Clarke v. S. (Ala.), 8 Cr. L. Mag, 21, 821 Clarke v. S., 117 Ala. 1, 3, 3S Clary v. Com., 4 Pa. St. 210, 330 Clary v. S., 33 Ark. 561, 217 Claunch, Ex parte, 71 Mo. 233, 690 Claxon V. Com., 17 Ky. L. 284, 731 Clay V. P., 86 111. 150, 333, 712 Clay T. S., 3 Tex. App. 499, 504 Clay V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 629, 838 Cleary v. S., 56 Ark. 124, 356, 358 Cleveland v. S., 34 Ala. 254, 399 Clem V. S., 42 Ind. 420, 118, 671, 672, 676, 719, 753, 870 899, 906 Clement v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 688, 101 Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. 86, 268 Clements v. S., 50 Ala. 117, 21 Clements v. S., 84 Ga. 660, 215 Clements v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 616, 535 Clements v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. Ill, 359 Clements v. Tillman, 79 Ga. 451, 460 Clemmons v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 279, 105, 132 Clemons v. S., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 23, 471 Clifford, Ex parte, 29 Ind. 106, 468 Clifford V. S., 56 Ind. 245, 167, 168 Clifford V. S., 30 Md. 575, 891 Clifton V. S., 73 Ala. 473, 824 Clifton T. S.. 26 Fla. 523, 208 Clifton V. S., 53 Ga. 241, 300, 301 Clinch's Case, 2 East P. C. 938, 250 Cline V. S., 43 Ohio St 332, 618 Clouser v. Clapper. 59 Ind. 548, 501, 503 Cluck V. S., 40 Ind. 263- 771, 832, 842 CluflE V. Ter. (Ariz.), 52 Pac. 350, 175 Coates V. P., 72 111. 303, 20, 637, 638, 706, 874 Coates V. S., 50 Ark. 330, 75, 93, 622 Coates V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 257, 200 Coats V. P., 7 Cowen (N. Y.) 587, 652 Cobb V. P., 84 111. 512, 757 Cobletz V. S., 36 Tex. 353, 138 Coburn v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 257, 535 Coburn v. Tucker, 21 Mo. 219, 444 Cochlin V. P., 93 111. 413, 881, 904 Cochran v. P., 175 III. 34, 495, 703 Cochran v. S., 91 Ga. 763, 64, 70 Cochran v. S., 102 Ga. 631, 572 Cochran v. V. S., 157 U. S. 286, 143 Cochrane v. Ingersoll, 73 N. Y. 613, 465 Cochrane v. S., 6 Md. 400, 241 Cockerman y. S. (Miss.), 19 So. 195, 407 Cockrehan v. S., 7 Hnmph. (Tenn.) 12 IT ^ f 2gQ Cody V. S., 100 Ga. 105, 148 CoflPelt V. S., 19 Tex. App. 436, 127 Coffelt V. S., 27 Tex. App. 608, 129 Coffin V. Anderson, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 398 788 Coffin' V. U. C, 156 U. S. 432, 182 TABLE OF CASES. XZjl [References are to Pages.] CofEman y. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) 495, 5, 624, 815, 862 €ohea v. S., 9 Tex. App. 173, 129 Cohen, Ex parte, 104 Cal. 534, 439, 440 Cohen v. S., 104 Ga. 734, 598 Cohen v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 178, 271 Cohn v. P., 149 111. 486, 645, 655, 660 Coker v. S., 20 Ark. 53, 835 Colam v. Pagett, L. R. 12 Q. B. D.. 67, 223 Cole V. Hall, 103 111. 30, 645, 650 Cole V. P., 84 111. 218, , „ ^ 322, 326, 702, 704, 876 Cole V. P., 37 Mich. 544, 127, 209 Cole V. S., 59 Ark. 50, 23, 830 Cole V. S., 9 Tex. 42, 564 Cole V. S., 28 Tex. App. 536, 564 ■Colee V. S., 75 Ind. 511, 617, 798 Coleman v. Frum, 3 Scam. (111.) 520 188 123 808 862 378 Colera'an v. P., 55 N. Y. 81, *:oIeman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 429 Coleman v. S., 13 Ala. 602, 564 Coleman v. S., 26 Fla. 61, 846 ■Coleman v. S., 26 Tex. App. 252, 208 209 fioleman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W,' 41, Coles V. Perry, 7 Tex. 109, Coley V. S., 85 Ala. 333, CoUp V. S., 153 Ind. 584, 140, 896 Collier V. S., 20 Ark. 36, 24, 781, 783 Collier v. Simpson, 5 C. & P. 460, 838 Collins v. Com., 12 Bush (Ky.) 271, 25, 28, 30, 786, 839 Collins V. Com., 15 Ky. L. 691, 207 Collins V. P., 39 111. 238, 131, 214, 217, 723 Collins V. P., 48 111. 147, 768, 769 Collins V. P., 98 III. 587, 782, 789, 836 Collins V. P., 103 111. 24, Collins V. S., 70 Ala. 19, Collins V. S., 33 Fla. 429, Collins V. S., 73 Ga. 76, Collins T. S., 78 Ga. 87, Collins V. S., 46 Neb. 37, Collins V. S., 15 Lea (Tenn.) 68, 643, 766 568 Collins V. S., 5 Tex. App. 38, Collins V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 30, 146 584 730 23 158 57 338 225 217 259 Collum V. S., 109 Ga. 531, Colter V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 284, Colter V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 165, Colter V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 39 S. W. 576, 217 Combs V. Com., 93 Ky. 313, 233 Comfort V. P., 54 111. 406, 120, 816 Comly V. Hillegass, 94 Pa. St. 132, 567 Commercial Bank t. Waters, 10 S. & M. (Miss.) 559, 432 Common v. P., 28 111. App. 230, 524 Coin. y. Adams, 7 Gray (73 Mass.) 43, 120, 185 Com. y. Adams, 127 Mass. 15, 638 Com. y. Adams, 160 Mass. 310, 571 Com. y. Ahearn, 160 Mass. 300, • 365 Com. V. Allen, 128 Mass. 46, 238, 239 Com. y. Alsop, 1 Brews. (Pa.) 336, 165, 180 Com. y. Andrews, 2 Mass. 114, 112 Com. y. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543, 914 Com. V. Andrews, 132 Mass. 263, 324 Com. y. Arnold, 83 Ky. 1, 43 Com. V. Asbury, 20 Ky. L. 574, 370 Com. y. Ashley, 2 Gray (Mass.) 356, 539 Com. y. Ayers, 115 Mass. 137, 381 Com. y. Bachop, 2 Pa. Sup. Ct. 294, 255 Com. y. Bagley, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 279, ^ 399 Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. 480, Com. V. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. 427, Com. y. Com. y. 235, Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. 9, Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. 268, Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. 182, Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. V. Com. y. Com. y. Com. y. 515, Com. y. 541, Bakeman, 105 Mass. S3, 640 Bakeman, 131 Mass. 577, 502 Baldwin, 149 Pa. St. 305, 285, 286 Ballon, 124 Mass. 26, 659 Bangs, 9 Mass. 387, 493' Bannon, 97 Mass. 214, 437 Barney, 10 Cush. (64 Mass.) 194, 231, 232, 240 Barry, 98 Ky. 394, 599 Barry, 115 Mass. 146, 630 Barry, 116 Mass. 1, 106, 143 Barry, 124 Mass. 325, 108 Bean, 111 Mass. 438, 801 Bearse, 132 Mass. 542, 646 Bell, 17 Ky. L. 277, 277 Bell, 145 Pa. St. 374, 395, 440 Bell, 166 Pa. St. 405, 507, 534 Bennett, 118 Mass. 451, 144, 152, 704 Berry, 5 Gray (Mass.) 93, 343 Berry, 99 Mass. 428, 106, 128, 135, 148 Bessler, 97 Ky. 498, 301 Betton, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 231 Betz, 2 Woodw. Dec. 210, 528 Bigelow, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 361 Billings, 167 Mass. 283, 188, 189 Birdsall, 69 Pac. 482, 891 Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 23, 27 Black, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 81, 686 Blackburn, 62 Ky. 4, 318 Blair, 126 Mass. 40, 497 Blaisdell, 107 Mass. 234, 347 Blanchette, 157 Mass. 489, 175, 180 Elaney, 133 Mass.' 571, 96 Blankinship, 165 Mass. 40, 560 Blood, 141 Mass. 575, 175, 825 Bios, 116 Mass. 56, 361 Bonner, 97 Mass. 587, 410, 800 Bostwick, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. B. Boyer, 7 Allen (Mass.) 306, Boynton, 116 Mass. 343, Bradford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 519 630 493 620 Bradford, 126 Mass. 42, 233 242 243 Bradney, 126 Pa. St. 199, ' 69S Brady, 147 Mass. 583, 488 Brennan, 103 Mass. 70, 373 Brettun, 100 Mass. 206, 115 Brewer, 164 Mass. 577, 23, 26 Brothers, 158 Mass. 200, 726 Brown, 121 Mass. 69, 493 Brown, 167 Mass. 144, 179 Brown, 138 Pa. St. 447, 278, 279 Buccieri, 153 Pa. St. 535, 834, 905 Buckley, 145 Mass. 181, 850 Burke, 12 Allen (Mass.) 127 75 301 Burke, 105 Mass. 377, Burke, 114 Mass. 261, Butland, 119 Mass. 320, 417, 421, 709 Butler, 144 Pa. St. 568, 119,- 131 Butterick, 100 Mass. 1, 137 Cahill, 12 Allen (Mass.) 540, 131 Call, 21 Pick. (38 Mass.) 173, 501 Campbell, 7 Allen (Mass.) 15 XXll TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.'] Com. v. CaponI, 155 Mass. 534, 515 Com. V. Carey, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 47, 261, 262 Com. V. Carrington, 116 Mass. 37, 901 Com. V. Carroll, 15 Gray (Mass.) 400, 384 Com. v. Carson, 166 Pa. St. 179, 212 Com. v. Carter, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 277, 437 Com. V. Casey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 421, 23, 25, 33 Com. T. Casey, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 246, 23 Com. V. Castley, 118 Mass. 1, 642 Com. V. Certain Gaming Impl., 141 Mass. 114, 573 Com. V. Chabbock, 1 Mass. 144, 818 Com. V. Chace, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 15, 101 Com. T. Chance, 174 Mass. 275, 3 Com. T. Chaney, 148 Mass. 6, 798 Com. V. Chapman, 65 Mass. 422, 19 Com. V. Chatham, 50 Pa. St. 181, 895 Com. V. Chemical Works, 16 Gray (Mass.) 231, 306 Com. V. Cheney, 141 Mass. 102, 52 Com. V. Child, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 252, 844 Com. V. Choate, 105 Mass. 451, 244, 824, 825 Com. T. Clancy, 154 Mass. 128, 565, 572, 798 Com. V. Clark, 145 Mass. 251, 305, 540, 542 Com. V. Clark, 157 Pa. St. 257, 412 Com. V. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 84 Com. V. Cleary, 135 Pa. St. 64, 829 Com. v. Clemmer, 190 Pa. St. 202, 718 Com. V. Clifford, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 215. 217 Com. T. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356, 299, 300, 302, 304 Com. V. Cody, 165 Mass. 133, 218, 676 Com. V. Coe, 115 Mass. 481, 164, 177, 178 Com. V. Colp, 5 Mass. 518, 527 Com. V. Collberg, 119 Mass. 350, 48 Com. T. Collins, 138 Mass. 483, 115 Com. V. Compton, 18 Ky. L. 479, 421 Com. y. Concannon, 5 Allen (Mass.) 502, 138 Com. V. Cony, 2 Mass. 523, 388 Com. V. Cook, 12 Mete. (53 Mass.) 93, 62, 63, 64 Com. V. Cooley, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 37, 580, 657 Com. V. Cooper, 15 Mass. 187, 76, 854 Com. V. Cooper, 130 Mass. 285, 147 Com. V. Cordoze, 119 Mass. 210, 300 Com. V. Corkery, 175 Mass. 460, 126 Com. V. Corkin, 136 Mass. 429, 494, 497, 824, 825 Com. V. Cornish, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 249, 410 Com. V. Costello, 120 Mass. 367, 254 Com. V. Costello, 121 Mass. 371, 888 Com. V. Coyle, 160 Pa. St. 36, 402 Com. V. Cressinger, 193 Pa. St. 326, 776 Com. V. Crowe, 165 Mass. 189, 243 Com. V. Crowley, 145 Mass. 430, 357 Com. V. Crulkshank, 138 Pa. St. 194, 131 Com V. Culver, 126 Mass. 464, 814, 815 Com. V. Cummings, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 212, 669 Com. V. Cunningham, 13 Mass. 245, 670 Com. V. Curry, 150 Mass. 509, 224, 225 Com. V. Curtis, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 134, 111 Com. V. Dam, 107 Mass. 210, 541 Com. V. Damon, 136 Mass. 441, 334 Com. V. Dana, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 329, 683, 82S Com. V. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408, 451 Com. V. Daniels, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 335, 177 Com. V. Davenport, 2 Allen (Mass.) 299, 305 Com. V. Davidson, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 33 17& Com.' V. Davis, 69 Ky. 295, 520 Com. V. Davis, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 434, 387 752 Com. V. Davis, 11 Gray (Mass.) 48', 489 Com. V. Davis, 104 Mass. 548, 106. Com. V. Day, 138 Mass. 186, 207 Com. V. Dean, 109 Mass. 349, 76, 640 Com. V. Dean, 110 Mass. 64, 177, 201 Com. V. Dejardln, 126 Mass. 46, 559 Com. y. Delehan, 148 Mass. 254, 901 Com. V. Demain, 6 Pa. L. J. 29, 493 Com. V. Desmarteau, 16 Gray (Mass.) 1, 897 Com. V. Devlne, 155 Mass. 224, 42a Com. y. Devlin, 141 Mass. 423, 160, 168, 177 Com. v. De Voe, 159 Mass. 101, 358 Com. V. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, 355 Com. V. Dicken, 145 Pa. St. 453, 347 348 Com. V. Dietrich, 7 Pa. Sup. Ct. 515, 389 Com, V. Dill, 156 Mass. 226, 505 Com. V. Dill, 160 Mass. 536, 586 Com. V. Doherty, 64 Mass. 52, 204 Com. V. Doherty, 127 Mass. 20, 135, 139, 154 Com. V. Donahue, 148 Mass. 529, 629 Com. V. Donovan, 170 Mass. 228, 391 396 Com. V. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412, ' 618 Com. V. Dowling, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 607, 555 Com. V. Downing, 4 Gray (Mass.) 29, 379 Com. V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 103, 711 Com. V. Drain, 99 Ky. 162, 277 Com. y. Drake, 124 Mass. 21, 498 Com. V. Drass, 146 Pa. St. 55, 225, 281 Com. V. Drew, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 179, 157, 160, 161, 165, 172 Com. V. Drew, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 279, 744 Com. V. Drew, 153 Mass. 588, 161, 170, 178, 179 Com. V. Drum, 58 Pa. St. 9, 13 Com. V. Duff, 87 Ky. 586, 588, 658 Com. V. Dunleay, 153 Mass. 330, 176 Com. V. Dunleay, 157 Mass. 386, 256 Com. V. Dyer, 128 Mass. 70, 321 Com. V. Eagan, 4 Gray (Mass.) 18, 385 Com. V. Eagan, 190 Pa. St. 10, 769 Com. V. Easland, 1 Mass. 15, 743 Com. V. Eastman, 1 Cush. (55 Mass.) „ 189, 161, 178, 319, 323 Com. V. Eckerd, 174 Pa. St. 137, 4 Com. V. Eckert, 14 Ky. L. 250, 595 Com. V. Edds, 14 Gray (Mass.) 406, 539 Com. V. Edgerly, 10 Allen (Mass.) „ 184, 263 Com. V. Edmands, 162 Mass. 517, 224 229 Com. V. Edwards, 135 Pa. St. 474, ' 322 Com. V. Elchelberger, 119 Pa. St. 254, 89R Com. V. Eisenhower, 181 Pa. St. 470, 5 Com. V. Elder, 172 Mass. 187, 236 Com. V. Ellis, 160 Mass. 165, 285 Com. V. Ellison, 14 Ky. L. 216, 238, 241 Com. V. Elwell, 43 Mass. 190, 504 TABLE OF CASES. XXllI [References are to Pages.l Com. V. Emerson, 165 Mass. 146, 575 Com. V. Enright, 17 Ky. L. 1183, 490 Com. V. Evans, 11 Ky. L. 573, 240 Com. V. Evans, 101 Mass. 25, 828 Com. V. Eversole, 98 Ky. 638, 469 Com. V. Farrell, 5 Allen (Mass.) 180, 468 Com. V. Farrell, 105 Mass. 189, 674 Com. V. Feely, 2 Va. Cas. 1, 438 Com. V. Felch, 132 Mass. 22, 31 Com. V. Felton, 101 Mass. 204, 155, 666 Com. V. Field, 13 Mass. 321. 686 Com. V. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297, . 469, 471, 703 Com. V. Fill, 11 Luz. Reg. (Pa.) 179, 53 Com. V. Fisher, 17 Mass. 46, 249 Com. V. Fitzpatrick, 121 Pa. St. 109, 677 Com. V. Fitzwood, 12 Mass. 313,^ 902 Com. V. Flannlgan, 137 Mass. 566, 227 Com. V. Flynn, 167 Mass. 460, 103 Com. V. Foley, 99 Mass. 497, 289 Com. V. Follansbee, 155 Mass. 274, 493 498 Com. V. Follett, 164 Mass. 477, ' 275 Com. V. Foster, 107 Mass. 221, 139, 144 Coin. V. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, 664, 888, 891 Com. V. Fowler, 145 Mass. 398, 376 Com. V. Frew, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 492, 205 Com. V. Fry, (Pa. St ), 48 Atl. 257, 39, 766 Com. V. Fuller, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 313, 667, 669 Com. V. Fuller, 163 Mass. 499, 504 Com. V. Galbralth, 6 Phil. (Pa.) 281, 323 Com. V. Gale, 10 Bush (Ky.) 488,.' 589 Com. V. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54, , 843 Com. V. Gallagher, 9 Pa. S. Ct. 100, 313 Com. V. Galligan, 156 Mass. 270, 679 Com. V. Gauvin, 143 Mass. 134, 244 Com. V. Gavin, 148 Mass. 449, 902 Com. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. St. 289, 621, 622, 623 Com. V. Gibson, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 386, 481 Com. V. Gillespie, 146 Pa. St. 546, 359 Com. V. Gillespie, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 469, 331 Com. V. Glover, 111 Mass. 395, 192, 212, 317 Com. T. Goddard, 2 Allen (Mass.) 148, 179 Com. V. Goldsmith, 176 Mass. 104, 356 Com. V. Goldstein, 114 Mass. 272, 236 Com. V. Goodall, 165 Mass. 588, 298. 299, 306, 538 Com. V. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117, 619 Com. V. Goodrich, 13 Allen (Mass.) 546, 580 Com. y. Goodwin, 14 Gray (Mass.) 55, 847 Com. V. Goodwin, 122 Mass. 19, 2 Com. V. Gordon, 159 Mass. 8, 475 Com. V. Gould, 158 Mass. 499, 367 Com. V. (5oulding, 135 Mass. 532, 490 Com. V. Gourdier, 80 Mass. 390, 566 Com. V. Grady. 13 Bush (Ky.) 285, 166 Com. V. Graham, 157 Mass. 73, 512 Com. V. Grant, 116 Mass. 17, 413, 434 Com. V. Graves, 97 Mass. 114, 782 Com. V. Gray, 129 Mass. 474, 507 Com. V. Green, 111 Mass. 392, 107, 108 Com. V. Green, 126 Pa. St. 531, 699 Com. V. Greer, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 535, 687 Com. V. Grey, 2 Gray (Mass.) 501, 707 Com. V. Griffln. 110 Mass. 181, 819 Com. V. -Grimes, 76 Mass. 470, 115 Com. V. Grinstead, 21 Ky. L. 1444, 704 Com. V. Hackett, 2 Allen (Mass.) 136, 5 Com. V. Hackett, 170 Mass. 194, 82, 900 Com. V. Hadley, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 188, 324 Com. V. Hagenlock, 140 Mass. 125, 47, 618 Coin. V. Haggel, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 10, 149 Com. V. Hall, 4 Allen (Mass.) 305, 24» Com. V. Hall, 142 Mass. 454, 343 Com. V. Ham, 156 Mass. 485, 286, 287 Com. V. Hamilton, 81 Mass. 480, 240^ Com. V. Haney, 127 Mass. 455, 29 Com. V. Hauley, 140 Mass. 457, 910- Com. V. Hardiman, 9 Gray (Mass.) 136, 87» Com. V. Hardy, 2 Mass. 317, 671, 829, 832^ Com. V. Harkins, 128 Mass. 79, 181 Com. v., Harley, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 506, 330' Com. V. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 269, 81» Com.v. Harney, 51 Mass. 422, 234, 238 Com. V. Harrey, 127 Mass. 453, 25, .27, 2& Com. V. Harrington, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 26, ■ 53T Com. V. Harris, 131 Mass. 336, 88 Com. V. Hart, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 130, 710 Com. V. Hartman, 6 Pa. Dist. R. 1^6, 474 Com. V. Hartwell, 128 Mass. 415, 20 Com. y. Haskins, 128 Mass. 60, 898 Com. V. Haughey, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 225, 167 Com. V. Hawes, 13 Bush (Ky.) 697, 918 Com. V. Hawkes, 123 Mass. 525, 757 Com. V. Hawkins, 157 111. 553, 634 Com. V. Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.) 463, 618, 788, 791 Com. V. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 512 515 516 Com. V. Hays, 14 Gray (Mass.) 62,' 104, 136, 145 Com. V. Hays, 150 Mass. 506, 362 Com. V. Healey, 157 Mass. 455, 572 Com. V. Helm, 9 Ky. L. 532, 563 Com. V. Henry, 22 Pa. St. 256, 169 Com. V. Herrick, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 465, 360 Com. V. Hersey, 84 Mass. 173, 203 Com. V. Hershell, Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 70, 176 Com. V. Hide, 94 Ky. 517, 247 (3om. V. Hill, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 137, 843 Com. V. Hill, 145 Mass. 305, 750 Com. V. Hillenbrand, 96 Ky. 407, 414 Com. V. Hills, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 530 127 Com. V. Hinds, 101 Mass. 211, 256 Com. V. Hitchings, 5 Gray (Mass.) 482, 877 Com. V. Hodgkins, 170 Mass. 197, 276 Com. V. Holland, 20 Ky. L. 581, 370 Com. V. Hollister, 157 Pa. St. 13, 321, 619 Com. V. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336, 336, 557 Com. V. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424, 782 Com. V. Holstine, 132 Pa. St. 357, 367, 385 Com. V. Holt, 121 Mass. 61, 508 Com. V. Hope, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 5, 898 Com. V. Hoover, 3 Clark (Pa.) 514, 527 Com. V. Hopkins, 133 Mass. 381, 298, 301, 305, 485, 487 Com. V. Houghton, 8 Mass. 107, 262 Com. V. Howard, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 407, 314 Com. V. Howe, 75 Mass. 110, 814 Com. V. Howe, 13 Gray (Mass.) 26, 490 XXIV TABLE OF CASPS. IHeferences are to Pages.l Com. y. Howe, 133 Mass. 350, 160 C«». V. aSire, 1,44 Mass. 144, 588, 592 Cdm. .V. Soxey, 16 MaJs. 375, 388 Com. V. Hudson, 97 Mass. 565, 37, 242 Com. V. Hughes, 5 Allen (Mass.) 409, ' ^ 417 Com. V. Hulbert, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 446, 100, 173 Co.tn.'V. Huot, 45 Mass. li;, 331, 323 Cpm. V. Hunt, Thdcher Or. C. (Mass.) 609, 319 Com. V. Hunter, 19 Ky. h- 1109, 306 Cam. V.' Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, •^ 474, 475 Copi. ,y. Hmiton, 168 Mass. 130, 326 C0tn. V. Hurd, 123 Mass. 438, 123 Com. y. Hussey, 111 JMass. 432, 149 Com. v. Htitchmson, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 309, 160 Cofli. r. Hutchison, 114 Mass. 325, 159 Com. V. Illinois, etc., E. Co., 20 Ky. L. 606, 347 Com. V. Intox. Liq., 115 Mass. 142, ' ■ ' " 374 652 Com. V. Intox. Liq., 140 Mass. 287, ' 683 Com. T. Int<>x. tjq., 17.2 Mass. 311, 375 Com. T. Irwin, S Phil. (Pa.) 380, 316 Com. V. Israel, 4 Lejgh .(Va.) ,675, 406 Com. V. J.; 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 625, 584 Com. y. Jackson, 11 Bush (Ky.) 679, 514 Com. y. Jackson, 81 Mass. 187, 495 Com- y- Jacksob, 132 Mass. 16, 162, 178, .820, 825 Com. V. Jackson, 10 Sup. Ct. (Pa.) 524 347 Com. y JacksQH, 2 Va. Cas. 501, 680 Com. y. Jailer, 1 Grant (Pa.) 218, 508 Com. y. James, 99 Mass. 438, 743 Com. y. Jennings, 121 Mass. 47. 513 Com. V. Johns. 6 Gray (Mass.) 274, 426 Com. y. Johnson, 162 Mass. 596, 285 Com. y. JohUson, 170 Mass. 152, 410 Com. y. Johnson, 133 Pa. St. 293, 186 Com. y. Johnson, 144 Pa. St. 377, 483 Com. y. Johnson, 162 Pa. St. 63, 809 Com. y. Johnston, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 263, 917 Com. V. Judd, 3 Mass. 329, 324 Com. V. Julius, 143 Mass. 132, 362 Com. V. Kammerer, 11 Ky. L. 777, 573 Coin. y. Kane. 173 Mass. 477, 303 Com. y. Kaniper, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 276, 61 Com. y. Karpowski, 167 Pa. St. 225, 160, 181 Com. y. Keary (Pa.), 48 Atl. 472, 649 Com. V. KeUogg, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 473, 330 Com. V. Kelly, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 69, 384 Com. y. Kennedy, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 531, 563 Com. y. Kennedy, 170 Mass. 18, 826 Com. V. Ketner, 92 Pa. St. 372, 155, 665 Com. V. Keyon, 83 Mass. 6, 710 Com. y. Killlan, 109 Mass. 345, 349 Com. y. Kimball, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 373, 631, 659 Com. y. Kimball, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 308, 376 Com. y. Kimball, 7 Gray (Mass.) 328, 540, 542 Com. y. Kimball, 108 Mass. 473, 415 Com. y. King, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 115, 348, 657 Com. V. King, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 284, 109, 189 Com. y. King, 8 Gray (Mass.) 501, 755 Com. y. Kinnaird, 18 Ky. L. 647, ' 40? Com. V. Knapp, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 515, ' 718, 816, 84^ Com. V. Knapp, 10 Pick. (Mass.) *77, _ Com. V. Knarr, 135 Pa. St. 35, 27§ Com. y. Kolb, 13 Pa. Sup. Ct. 347, 708 Com. y. Kostenbauder (Pa.), 20 Atl. 995, 320 Com. V. Krause, 193 Pa. St. 306, 41 Com. y. Lafayette, 148 Mass. 130, 365- Com. y. Laffierty, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 672, 501 Com. y. Lakeman, 5 Gray (Mass.) 82, 186 Com. y. Lamb, 67 Mass. 493, 239, 70$ Com. y. Lambert, 12 Allen (Mass.) 177, 539 Com. y. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 512, 530 Com. y. Lang, 10 Gray (Mass.) 11, 901 Com. y. Langley, 80 Mass. 21, 710 Com. V. Langley, 169 Mass. 89, 160 Com. y. Lannan, 153 Mass. 287, 102, 103, llO Com. y. Lansdale. 98 Ky. 664, 565 Com. V. Lattlnyille, 120 Mass. 385, 362 Com. y. Layery, 101 Mass. 207, ' 131 Com. y. Layonsair, 132 Mass. 1, 538 Com. y. Leach, 156 Mass. 99, 497, 498 Com. V. Leath, 1 Va. Cas. 151, 892 Com. y. Lee, 149 Mass. 179, 163, 164, 166, 167 Com. y. Leeds, 9 Phlla. (Pa.) 569, 320 Com. y. Lehigh Valley E. Co., 165 Pa. St. 162, 713 Com. y. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, 880 829 Com. V, Lester, 129 Mass. 103, ' 105 Com. V. Lewis, 140 Pa. St. 261, 123, 226 Com. y. Lewis, 6 Pa. S. Ct. 610, 269 Com. y. Lewis, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 938, 743 Com. V. Light, 10 Pa. Sup. Ct. 66, 185 Com. y. Linn, 158 Pa. St. 22, 487. 582, 583 Com. y. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163, 505 Com. y. Liyermore, 4 Gray (Mass.) 18, 360 Com. y. Lookwood, 109 Mass. 323, 782 Com. V. Loesch, 153 Pa. St. 502, 366, 367 Com. y. Logue, 160 Mass. 551, 155 Com. V. Loring, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 370, 580 Com. y. Lowery, 149 Mass. 67, 898 Com. V. Luberg, 94 Pa. St. 85, 267, 666 Com. V. 'Lucls, 99 Mass. 431, 105 Com. y. Luckis, 99 Mass. 431, 99 Com. y. Luddy, 143 Mass. 563. 362 Com. y. Lufkin, 7 Allen (89 Mass.) 579, 223, 228, 255 Com. y. Luscomb, 130 Mass. 42, 479 Com. V. Lynes, 142 Mass. 577, 785 Com. y. Lynn, 123 Mass. 218, 53 Com. V. Macloon, 100 Mass. 1, 9, 44 Com. V. Maddox, 17 Ky. L. 557, 593, 597 Com. y. Magoou, 172 Mass. 214, 865 Com. V. Mahar, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 120, 235, 237 Com. V. Makely, 131 Mass. 421, 235, 236 Com. V. Maloy, 57 Pa. St. 291, 889 Com. V. Mann, 4 Gray (Mass.) 213, 488 Com. y. Manning, 164 Mass. 547, 378 Com. V. Maroney, 105 Mass. 467. 301 Com. y. Marzynskl, 149 Mass. 68, 356 Com. V. Mason, 105 Mass. 163, 102, 164, 184 TABLE OF CASES, ;Kxy [References are to Pages.'] Com. V. Matthews, 89 Ky. 287, 9, 26, 30, 634 (Com. v. Matthews, 152 Pa. St. 166, 356 {CoiB. V. Maxwell, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 139, 710 (Com. V. Mayer, 22 Pa. Co. K. 38, 181 Com. V. Mayloy, 57 Pa. St. 291, 891 :Com. V. McAfee, 108 Mass. 468, 8 Com. T. McArthur, 152 Mass. 522, 477 Com. V. MeBride, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 545, 932 Com. V. McCabe, 163 Mass. 98, 370 Com. V. McCance, 164 Mass. 162, 557 .Com. V. McCarthy, 163 Mass. 458, 744 Com. V. McCarty, 152 Mass. 577, 418 Com. V. McCarty, 165 Mass. 37, 83 Com. V. McCarty, 2 Clark (Pa.) 351, 528 Com. V. McClean, 2 Parson Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 367, 318 jCom. V. McClellan, 101 Mass. 34, 228 Com. V. McCormick, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 535, 490 Com. V. McCue, 16 Gray (Mass.) 226, 407 Com. V. McCulloeh, 15 Mass. 227, 386 Com. y. McDooald, 110 Mass. 405, 80, 86 Com. V. McDuffy, 126 Mass. 467, 169, 461 Com. T. McGahey, 11 Gray (Mass.) 194, 684 Pom. V. McGowan, 2 Pars. Bq. Cas. (Pa.) 341, 331 Com. V. McGrath, 140 Mass. 296, 514 Com. V. McGurty, 145 Mass. 257, 599 Com. T. McHale, 97 Pa. St. 397, 388, 589 Com. V. McKean, 98 Mass. 9, 251 Com. T. McKisson, 8 S. & B. (Pa.) 420, 717 Cotn. V. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. 449, 426 Com. V. McMahon, 145 Pa. St. 413. 861 Com. V. McManus, 143 Pa. St. 64, 824 Com. V. McMonagle, 1 Mass. 517, 200 Com. T. McNeese, 156 Mass. 231, 354 Com. T. McPike, 3 Cush. (Mass.) ^ 181, 10, 817 Pom. V. McShane, 110 Mass. 502, 370 Com. V. Mead, 12 Gray (Mass.) 167, 786 Com. V. Megibben Co., 101 Ky. 195, 490 Com. V. Merriam, 148 Mass. 427, 488 £0m. y. Merrill, 14 Gray (Mass.) 415, 78, 89 £0m. y. Merrill, 8 Allen (Mass.) 545, 753 (Com. V. Merrill, 1 Thacher Cr. Cas. ^' (Mass.) 1, 209 Com. y. Meserye, 154 Mass. 66, ^' 261, 326, 330, 841 Com. y. MIka, 171 Pa. St. 273, 23 Com. y. Millard, 1 Mass. 6, 205 Com. V. Miller, 35 Ky. 320, 48 Com. y. Miller, 107 Pa. St. 276, 706 Com. y. Miller, 131 Pa. St. 118, 476 Com. V. Miller, 139 Pa. St. 77, 642 Com. V. Miller, 177 Pa. St. 276, 280 Com. y. Miller, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 68, 470 com. y. Milliken, 174 Mass. 79, 393 Com. V. Milliman, 13 S. & E. (Pa.) 403 347 Com. v. Mitchell, 6 Pa. Supr. 369, 497 Com. y. Monahan, 9 Gray (Mass.) 119, 425 Com. V. Montgomery, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 534, 121, 122, 126 pom. y. Moore, 89 Ky. 542, 165, 166 414 339 142 506 493 41 154 Com. y. Moore, 17 Ky. L. 210, 284 Com. y. Moore, 20 Mass. 194, 522, 526 Com. y. Moore, 145 Mass. 244, 356 , Com. V. Moore, 166 Mass. 513, 137 Com y. Moore, 99 Pa. St. 570, 157, 166, 167, 171 Com. V. Moore, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 501, Com. y. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199, Com. V. Morrisey, 86 Pa. St. 416, Com. y. Morrissey, 175 Mass. 264, Com. V. Morrison, 16 Gray (Mass.) 224 Com. v. Morrison, 193 Pa. St. 613, Com. y. Morton, Del. Co. E. 521, Com. y. Mosier, 135 Pa. St. 221, 508, 790 Com. y. Mulrey, 170 Mass. 103, 167, 17.5 Com. V. Murphy, 95 Ky. 38, 364, 587 Com. y. Murphy, 96 Ky. 28, 160, 16? Com. y. Murphy, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 472, 19 Com. V. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66, 75, 76, 317, 634, 877 Com. y. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171, 310, 311 Com. y. Murphy, 174 Mass. 369, ,671 Com. y. Murphy, 8 Pa. Co. E. 399, 333 Com. y. Murr, 7 Pa. Sup. Ct. 391, 305 Com. V. Murray, 135 Mass. 530, Com. y. Murray, 138 Mass. 508, Com. y. Myers (Ky.), 56 S. W. 412, Com. V. Myers, 146 Pa. St. 24, "" Com. y. Newell, 7 Mass. 257, Com. V. New York, etc., R. Co., 112 Mass. 412, 347 Com. V. Nicely, 130 Pa. St. 261, 901 Com. y. Nichols, 10 Allen (92 Mass.) 199, 187, 47S Com. y. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285, 507 Com. V. Nichols, 134 Mass. 531, 896 Com. y. Niekerson, 5 Allen (Mass.) 518, Com. y. Noble, 165 Mass. 13, Com. y. Norton, 11 Allen (Mass.) 266, Com. y. Noxon, 121 Mass. 42, Com. y. O'Brien, 66 Mass. 84, Com. y. O'Brien, 107 Mass. 208, 389 363 303 72, 321 192 72 495 167 348 325 59 Com. y. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342, 50, 832 Com. y. O'Brien, 172 Mass. 249, 171, 175, 179, 180 Com. y. O'Brien, 140 Pa. St. 555, 327 Com. y. O'Connell, 12 Allen (Mass.) 451, 118 Com. y. Odlin, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 275, 367, 376 Com. y. O'Hara, 17 Ky. L. 1030, 599 Com. y. Parker (Ky.), 57 S. W. 484, 329 Com. y. Parker, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 263, 493 Com. y. Parker, 165 Mass. 526, 149, 666 Com. y. Parker, Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 24, 163 Com. y. Parmenter, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 279, 266 Com. y. Patterson, 138 Mass. 498, 381 Com. y. Pease, 16 Mass. 91, 467 Com. y. Pease, 110 Mass. 412, 380, 870 Com. y. Peaslee (Mass.), 59 N. E. 55, 241 Com. V. Perdue, 2 Va. Cas. 227, 297 Com. y. Perkins, 124 Pa. St. 36, 434, 448, 456 Com. y. Ferris, 108 Mass. 1, 199 Com. y. Perry, 99 Mass. 428, 106 Com. y. Phillips, 12 Ky. L. 410, 245 Com. y. Phillips, 162 Mass. 504, 90 XXVI TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.1 Com. V. Phipps (Pa.), 4 Cr. L. Mag. 723 180 9 113 423 227 286 649, Com. V. Pierce, 130 Mass. 31, Com. V. Pierce, 138 Mass. 165, Com. V. Pine, 2 Pa. L. J. R. 154, Com. V. Piper, 120 Mass. 185, 764, 815, 826 Com. V. Place, 153 Pa. St. 314, 335, 339, 340 Com. V. Pollard, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 225 Com. v. Pollock, 6 Pa. Dlst. E. 559, 413, 588 Com. V. Pomeroy, 117 Mass. 143, 622 Com. V. Pomphret, 137 Mass. 564, 366 Com. V. Porter, 1 Gray (Mass.) 476, 290 Com. V. Porter, 164 Mass. 576, Com. V. Porter, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 503, Com. T. Posey, 4 Call (Va.) 109, 231 Com. V. Pratt, 132 Mass. 246, Com. V. Pratt, 137 Mass. 98, Com. V. Preece, 140 Mass. 276, Com. T. Presby, 80 Mass. 65, Com. V. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) 472, 261, 263, 826 Com. V. Prlns, 75 Mass. 127, 323 Com. V. Proctor, 165 Mass. 38, 475 Com. V. Prophet, 1 Brown (Pa.) 135, 928 Com. V. Proprietors, 2 Gray (Mass.) 345, Com. V. Putnam, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 136, Com. V. Putnam, 29 Pa. St. 296, Com. V. Quay, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 723, Com. v. Qulnn, 150 Mass. 401, Com. V. Randall, 119 Mass. 107, Com. T. Reardon, 60 Mass. 78, Com. V. Rees, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 545, Com. V. Reese, 16 Ky. 1, Com. V. Reiter, 78 Pa. St. 161, Com. V. Reynolds, 14 Gray (Mass.) 87, Com. v. Reynolds, 120 Mass. 190, Com. r. Reynolds, 122 Mass. 454, Com. V. Richards, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 434, 24, 803 Com. T. Richardson, 126 Mass. 34, 513, 516 Com. V. Richardson, 142 Mass. 71, 273 Com. V. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, 100, 124 Com. V. Ritter, 98 Ky. 664, 565 Com. V. Roberts, 108 Mass. 290, 20, 27 Com. v. Roberts (Pa.), 22 Pa. Co. R. 214, 153 Com. V. Robertson, 162 Mass. 90, 17, 19 Com. V. Robinson, 67 Mass. 555, 743 Com. T. Robinson, 126 Mass. 259, 369, 670 Com. V. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571, 825 Com. V. Roby, 12 Pick. (29 Mass.) 496, 2, 213, 670, 854 Com. V. Rock, 10 Gray (Mass.) 4, 778 Com. V. Eockafellow, 163 Pa. St. 139, 146 Com. V. Roddy, 184 Pa. St. 274, 26 Com. V. Rogers, 1 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 124, 280 Com. V. Root, 96 Ky. 533, 393 Com. V. Rose, 21 Ky. L. 1278, 577 Com. V. Ruddle, 142 Pa. St. 144, 349 Com. V. Rudy, 5 Pa. Dlst. R. 270, 589 Com. V. Ruffner, 28 Pa. St. 260, 711 Com. V. Rulsseau, 140 Mass. 363, 882 233 120 152 811, 812 52 630 503 319 315 243 120 504 356 392 401 472 687 212 Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 223, Com. v. Com. V. Com. V. 142, Com. V. Com. V. 547, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. v. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 91, Com. V. 141, Com. V. Com. V. 525, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 575, Com. V. Com. T. (Pa.) Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 138, Com. V. Com. V. 304, Com. V. 60, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. (iom. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 321, Com. V. Com. V. Com. T. 218, Com. V. 321, Com. V. Runnells, 10 Mass. 518, 342, 343, 344 Russell, 156 Mass. 196, 258, 263 Ryan, 152 Mass. 283, 366 Ryan, 155 Mass. 523, 106, 109 Ryan, 157 Mass. 403, 59S Ryan, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. ~ Sanders, 98 Ky. 12, Saulsbury, 152 Pa. St. 554, Sawtelle, 11 Cush. (Mass.) Sawtelle, 356 17S 399 114 141 Mass. 140, 152, 824 Scannel, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 81 Schwartz, 92 Ky. 510, 158, 161, 164 Scott, 123 Mass. 239, 910 Sebring, 1 Pa. Dlst. R. 163, 166 Seeley, 167 Mass. 163, 743 Selby, 87 Ky. 595, 594 Sessions, 169 Mass. 329, 175 Shannihan, 145 Mass. 99, 358 Sharpless, 2 Serg. & R. (Fa.) 554 Shattuck, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 278, 279 Shaw, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 52, 596, 633 Shayer, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 363 Shea, 130 Mass. 314, 539, 540 Shed, 1 Mass. 228, 620 Shedd, 61 Mass. 514, 323 Shedd, 140 Mass. 451, 203 Sheehan, 81 Pa. St. 132, 462 Sheets, 197 Pa. St. 69, «13 Shepard, 1 Allen (Mass.) 152 Sheriff, 15 Phlla. (Pa.) 393, 319 Shertzer, 3 Lack. L. N. 8, 107 Shirley, 152 Pa. St. 170, 475 Shissier, 7 Pa. Dlst. R. 344, 147 Shurn, 145 Mass. 150, 385 Shutte, 130 Pa. St. 272, 216 Silsbee, 9 Mass. 417, 689 Simmons, 29 Ky. 614, 296 Simmons, 165 Mass. 356, 286 Simpson, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 154 Sinclair, 138 Mass. 493, 364, 367, 381 Slack, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 580 Slate, 11 Gray (Mass.) 186, 190 Sliney, 126 Mass. 49, 305 Smart, 6 Gray (Mass.) 15, 148 Smith, 111 Mass. 429, 105 Smith, 129 Mass. 104, 139, 147 Smith, 151 Mass. 491, 238, 245 Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 330, 790 Smith, 166 Mass. 370, 561, 570 Smith, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 553, 376 Snelllng, 15 Pick. (32 Mass.) 340 752 Snelling, 4 Btnn. (Pa.) 379,' 219 Snow, lie Mass. 47, 494, 495 Snowden, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 447 Snyder, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 588 Spear, 143 Mass. 172, 478 TABLE OF CASES. XXVll [References are to Pages."] Com. V. 396 , Com. V. Com. V. 343 Com. T. 492 J Com. V. Com. V. 226, Com. V. 854 , Com. V. Com. T. Com. T. Com. T. 280. Com. V. Com. T. Com. V. 521. Com. T. Com. V. Com. V. 477, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. - 646. Com. V. Com. T. Com. T. Com. T. 605. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 450, Com. V. 374, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 552, Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. Com. V. 173. Com. y. Spring, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 371 Squire, 42 Mass. 258, 240 Stearns, 2 Mete (Mass.) 138 139 Stebbius, 8 Gray (Mass.)' 114 Stelmling, 176 Pa. St. 400, 101 Stephenson, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 594 Stephenson, 8 Plek. (Mass.) 194 Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446, 163, 169, 176 Stevenson, 142 Mass. 466, 68 Still, 83 Ky. 275, 421 Stoddard, 9 Allen (91 Mass.) 47, 285 Stone, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 43, 160 St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 482, 485 Strain, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 172 Sturgeon, 18 Ky. L. 613, 308 311 Sugland, 4 Gray (Mass.) l', 80 Sullivan, 6 Gray (Mass.) 80 Sullivan, 136 Mass. 170, 186 Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142, 574 575 Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315, ' 828 Sullivan, 156 Mass. 229, 381 Surles, 165 Mass. 59, 495 Swain, 160 Mass. 354, 567 Swallow, 8 Pa. Sup. 539, 333 Tabor, 138 Mass. 496, 875 Tate (Mass.), 59 N. E. 366 Tay, 146 Mass. 146, 363, 383 Tay, 170 Mass. 192, 291 Taylor, 96 Ky. 394, 420 . Taylor, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 255 Taylor, 105 Mass. 172, 181 Taylor, 132 Mass. 261, 495 Tenney, 97 Mass. 50, 155, 165, 666 Thacher, 97 Mass. 583, 577 Thompson, 108 Mass. 461, 743 Thompson, 159 Mass. 56, 25, 494, 498, 796 Thompson, 126 Pa. St. 614, 401 Thornton, 113 Mass. 457, 223 Thrasher, 11 Gray (Mass.) 801 Thurlow, 24 Plek. (Mass.) 379 Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 536, 319 Tibbetts, 157 Mass. 519, 495 823 Titus, 116 Mass. 42, ' 104 Tivnon, 74 Mass. 375, 202 Tobin, 108 Mass. 426, 407, 684, 685 Tobin, 125 Mass. 203, 903 Toiman, 149 Mass. 229. 490 Tracy, 5 Mete. (Mass.) Trainor, 123 Mass. 415, Trefethen, 157 Mass. 185, Trider, 143 Mass. 180, Tuck, 37 Mass. 356, Tucker, 110 Mass. 403, Tuckerman, 10 Gray (Mass.) Turner, 8 Bush (Ky.) 1, 404 117 16 794 201 231 152 714 Com. V. Turner, 34 Ky. 571, 520 Com. V. Turner, 98 Ky. 526, 414 Com. V. Turner, 145 Mass. 296, 223, 226 Com. V. Dhrig, 146 Mass. 132, 382 Com. V. Uhrig, 167 Mass. 420, 233 Com. V. Upton, 6 Gray (Mass.) 473, 489 Com. V. Van Horn, 188 Pa. St. 143, 767 Com. V. Van Shaaek, 16 Mass. 105, 231 Com. V. Van Tuyi, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 1, 181 Com. V. Vieth, 155 Mass. 442, 476, 477 Com. V. Vincent, 165 Mass. 18, 380 Com. V. Wade, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 396, 670 Com. V. Waldman, 140 Pa. St. 89, 355 Com. V. Walker, 108 Mass. 312, 166, 177 Com. V. Wallace, 143 Mass. 88, 300 Com. V. Wallace, 114 Pa. St. 413, 160, 161, 165 Com. V. Walsh, 165 Mass. 62, 365 Com. V. Ward, 2 Mass. 397, 255 Com. V. Warner, 173 Mass. 541, 149, 767 Com. V. Warner, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 556, 594 Com. T. Warren, 94 Ky. 615, 166 Com. V. Warren, 6 Mass. 74, 158, 316, 326 Com. V. Warren, 143 Mass. 568, 850 Com. T. Warren, 160 Mass. 533, 475, 476 477 Com. V. Warren, 161 Mass. 281, 522 Com. V. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43, 318 Com. V. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 2, 642, 809, 845, 846, 768 Com. V. Welch, 144 Mass. 356, 370 Com. V. Wells, 110 Pa. St. 463. 563 Com. V. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441, 634 Com. V. Wentz, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 269, 521 522 Com. V. Werntz, 161 Pa. St. 591. 747, 817 Com. V. Wesley, 166 Mass. 248, 241, 243 Com. V. Wetherbee, 153 Mass. 159, 475 Com. V. Wetherill, 8 Pa. Dlst. E. 653, 276 Com. V. Whalen, 131 Mass. 419, 196 Com. V. Whistelo, 3 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 194, 526 Com. V. White, 110 Mass. 407, 47, 49 Com. V. White, 123 Mass. 430, 187 Com. V. White, 145 Mass. 392, 256, 263 Com. V. White, 133 Pa. St. 182, 220 Com. V. Whitman, 118 Mass. 459, 223 227 Com. V. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224,' 65, 66, 549 Com. V. Wicks, 2 Pa. Dlst. R. 17, 520 Com. V. Wllgus, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 178, 159 Com. V. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175, 346 Com. V. Willard, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 476, 368 Com, V. Williams, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 582, 192, 206, 712, 755 Com. V. Williams, 6 Gray (Mass.) 1, 807 Com. V. Williams, 110 Mass. 401, 224 Com. V. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 248 Com. V. Wilson, 152 Mass. 12, 829, 831 Com. V. Wilson, 19 Pa. Co. C. R. 521, 480 Com. V. Wilson, 14 Phi la. (Pa.) 384, 648 Com. V. Wilson, 1 Chester Co. E. (Pa.) 538, 324, 326 Com. V. Wise, 110 Mass. 181, 306, 714, 715 Com. V. Wolfinger, 16 Pa. Co. K. 257, 333 :?xviu TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages. 1 Com. V. Wood, 4 Gray (Mass.) 11, 751 Com. v. Wood, 10 Gray (Mass.) 477, 265 Com. V. Wood, 11 Gray (77 Mass.) 85, 493, 494, 495, 408 Com. V. Wood, 97 Mass. 225, 302, 539, 630 Com. V. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 162, 169, 182 Com. V. Worcester, 141 Mass. 58, 910 Com. V. Wright, 16 Ky. L. 257, 545 Com. V. Wright, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 46, 332, 333 Com. V. Wright, 137 Mass. 250, 577 Com. V. Wright, 139 Mass. 382, 558 Com. V. Wright, 158 Mass. 149, 919 Com. V. Yorls, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 92, 639 Com. V. Young, 165 Mass. 396, 275 Com. V. Young, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 606, 432 Com. T. Zacharias, 181 Pa. St. 126, 483 Com. v. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. 615, 367, 808 Compton T. S., 117 Ala. 56, 694 Compton v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130, 920 Comstock V. S., 14 Neb. 205, 74 Conltey v. P., 5 Park Cr. (N. Y.) 31, 549 Conklin v. Niles, 62 Vt. 104, 527 Conkwright v. P., 35 111. 206, 122, 123 Conley v. Com., 98 Ky. 125, 617 Conley v. P., 80 111. 237, 728, 732 Conley t. P., 170 III. 592, 836 Conley v. S., 85 Ga. 348, 674 Conn V. P., 116 111. 464, 58, 632 Connaghan v. P., 88 111. 461, 642, 779 Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 111. 519, 838 Connelly v. P., 81 111. 379, 519 Connelly v. S., 60 Ala. 89, 777 Conner v. S., 34 Tex. 659, 816 Conners v. P., 50 N. Y. 240, 786 Conners v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 453, 132 Conners t. S., 47 Wis. 523, 78, 93 Connor v. P., 18 Colo. 373, 321, 619 Connor v. S., 29 Pla. 455, 181 Connors v. U. S., 158 U. S. 408, 594 Conolly V. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 474, 55 Conover v. Wood, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 84, . 455 Conrad v. S., 144 Ind. 290, 727 Converse, In re, 42 Fed 217, 139 Conway V. S., 118 Ind. 482, 803 Conyers v. S., 50 Ga. 103, 375 Cook V. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 665, 920 Cook T. P., 51 111. 145, 522, 527, 529 Cook V. P., 177 111. 146, 498, 864 Cook V. S., 60 Ala. 39, 676, 677, 774, 887, 903 Cook v. S., 83 Ala. 62, 233 Cook T. S., 110 Ala. 40, 475, 478, 479 Cook V. S., 11 Ga. 53, 506 Cook V. S., 26 Ga. 593, 901 Cook T. Skelton, 20 111. 107, 757 Cook T. Ter., 3 Wyo. 110, 897 Cook V. Wood, 24 111. 295, 309, 907, 908, 913 Cook T. Wyatt, 60 Kan. 535, 932 Cooke V. Graham, 3 Cranch 229, 529 Cooksie t. S., 26 Tex. App. 72, 100 Cooley T. S., 46 Neb. 603, 448 Coon V. P., 99 111. 371, 90, 798, 862 Cooney v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 281, 774 Cooper, In re, 32 Vt. 253, 429, 463 Cooper V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 546, 415 Cooper T. P., 13 Colo. 337, 461 Cooper V. S., 87 Ala. 135, 206 Cooper V. S., 88 Ala. 107, 207, 862 Cooper T. S., 90 Ala. 641, 552 Cooper T. S., 88 Ga. 441, 35* Cooper V. S., 89 Ga. 222, ^ ^ „,„ 709 Cooper V. S., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 316, 519 Cooper V. S., 25 Tex. App. 530, 592 Cooper r. S., 26 Tex. App. 575, 592 Cope V. Com., 20 Ky. L. 721, 417, 421 Cope v. Cope, 1 M. & E. 269, 528 Copeland v. Islay, 2 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.) 505, 688 Copeland v. S., 97 Ala. 30, 176 Copeland v. S.. 36 Tex. Cr. 576, 562 Copeland v. Town of Sheridan, 152 Ind. 107, 371 Copperman v. P., 56 N. Y. 591, 188 Coquitlam, The (Barle v. U. S.), 77 Fed. 744, 607 Corbin, In re, 8 S. C. 390, 453 Corbin v. P., 131 111. 615, 730, 732 Corcoran, In re (Idaho), 59 Pac. 18, ?30 Cordell v. S., 22 Ind. 1, 19 Corley v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W- 975, 312 Cornelius V. Com., 3 Mete. (Ky.) 481, 783 Cornelius v. S., 13 Tex. App. 349, 80 Cornell v. P., 107 111. 372, 645 Cornell v. S., 104 Wis. 527, 776, 865 Cornwall v. S., 91 Ga. 277, 206 Cory T. S., 55 Ga. 236, 154 Cosby V. Com., 12 Ky. L. 982, 123 Cosgrove v. Winney (U. S.), 19 S. Ct. 598, 918 Cossart v. S., 14 Ark. 541, 429 Costello V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 360, 193 Costelo V. Croweii, 139 Mass. 590, 839 Costley v. Com., 118 Mass. 1, g47 Cotton V. Sharpstein, 14 Wis. 226, 435 Cotton V. S., 88 Ala. 168, 314 Cotton V. S., 31 Miss. 504, 625 Cotton V. S., 4 Tex. 260, 727 Cottrell, Ex parte, 13 Neb. 198, 529 Couch V. S., 63 Ala. 163, 693 Couch V. S., 28 Ga. 64, 929 Couch T. S., 24 Tex. 559, 299 Coughlin V. Bhlert, 39 Mo. 285, 459 Coughlin v. P., 18 111. 268 808, 863 Coughlin V. P., 144 111. 180, 763, 768, 770, 771, 772, 773, 777, 779 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, , 439. 794, 795 Count De Toulouse Lantrec, In re, 102 Fed. 878, 930 Covington v. S., 28 Tex. App. 225, 563 Cowart V. Dunbar, 56 Ga. 417, 442 Cowell V. S., 63 N. J. L. 523, 294 Cowen V. P., 14 111. 348, 166, 167, 172, 176, (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. Cowen V. S, 751, Cowley V. P. Cowley V. S. 32? 163 285 47 205 33 N. Y. 464. 78 Tenn. 282, Cox V. Com. 10 Ky. L. 597, Cox V. P., 82 111. 191, 532, 616, 715 Cox V. S., 117 Ala. 103, 509 Cox V. S., 95 Ga. 502, 572 Cox V. S., 105 Ga. 610, 282 Cox V. S., 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 193, 350 Cox V. S., 66 Miss. 14, 256 Cox V. S., 8 Tex. App. 254, 327 Cox V. S., 28 Tex. App. 92, 842 Cox V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 754, 53 Coy, In re, 127 TJ. S. 731, 600 Coyle V. Com., 100 Pa. St. 573, 621 Coyle V. Com., 104 Pa. St. 117, 803 Coyne v. P., 124 111. 17, 408, 409, 423 TABLE OF CASES. XXIX {References are to Pages.l Crabb v. S., 88 Ga. 384, 385 Crabtree v. Baker, 75 Ala. 91, 445 CraWree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 111. 214, 800 Craemer v. Wash. State, 168 U. S. 124, 897, 931 Craig V. S., 108 Ga. 776, 369 Crandall, In re, 59 Kan. 671, 926 Crandall v. P., 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 309, 910 Crane v. Nortbfield, 33 Vt. 124, 805 503, 507 209 515 54 355 417 506 201, 203 Crane v. P., 168 111. 399, Crane v. S., Ill Ala. 45. Crane v. S., 94 Tenn. 86, Cranor v. S., 39 Ind. 64, Craven v. S., 109 Ga. 266, Cravey v. S.. 33 Tex. Cr. 557, Crawford's Case, 7 Me. 57, Crawford v. S., 44 Ala. 382, Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, 625, 789, 823, 831 Crawford v. S., 90 Ga. 701, ' 4, 214, 215, 219, 629 Crawford v. S., 94 Ga. 772, 310 Crawford v. S., 2 Ind. 132, 793 Crawford v. S., 33 Ind. 304, 566 Crawford v. S., 155 Ind. 692, 744, 747, 913 Crawford v. S., 21 Tex. App. 454, 50 Crawford v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 344, 256 Creed v. P.. 81 111. 565, 783, 874 Creeg T. S., 24 Ind. 151, 718 Creigliton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 910, 550 Crews V. P., 120 III. 317, 642, 728, 862 Crier v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 621, 230 Criner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 873. 863 Crittenden, Ex parte, 62 Cal. 534, 457 459 Crittenden v. Com., 82 Ky. 164, ' 799 Croeheron v. S., 86 Ala. 64, 106, 107 Crockett v. S., 49 Ga. 185, 85 Crofton V. S., 25 Ohio St. 249, 302, 537 Croghan v. S., 22 Wis. 444. 553 Croker v. S., 47 Ala. 53. 113, 115, 888 Cromartle T. Bladen, 85 N. C. 211, 457 459 Cromwell v. S., 74 Ga. 396, ' 125 Cronin v. P., 82 N. Y. 318, 491 Cronk v. P., 131 111. 60, 411, 426, 787, 910 Crook V. P., 16 111. 534, 430, 441, 447, 452 Crook V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 252, 116 Crookham v. S., 5 W. Va. 510, 11, 31, 617 Croom, Ex parte, 19 Ala. 561, 928 Croom V. S., 85 Ga. 718, 688 Ga. 430, 832 40 Tex. Cr. 672, 79 Crosby v. P., 137 III. 325, 10, 51, 617, 618, 632, 836 Crosby v. P., 189 III. 300, 631, 637 Crosher, In re, 11 N. Y. Supp. 504, 460 Cross V. P., 18 Colo. 321, 575 Cross V. P., 47 111. 155, 251, 255, 263, 714, 836, 839, 854 Cross V. P., 10 Mich. 24, 522 Cross V. S., 132 Ind. 65, 872 Cross V. S., 17 Tex. App. 476, 584, 586 Crosswell v. P., 13 Mich. 429, 75, 76 Crouch, Ex parte, 112 U. S. 128, 925 Crouch V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 145, 349 Crow, In re, 60 Wis. 349, 932 Crow V. Jordan, 49 Ohio St. 655, 525 Crow V. S., 96 Ga. 297, 286 Crow V. S., 6 Tex. 334, 741 Croom V. S., Croomes v. S., Crow V. S., 24 Tex. 12, 446, Crow V. S., 41 Tex. 468, Crow V. S.. 33 Tex. App. 264, Crowe V. P., 92 III. 236, 232, Crowley v. Com., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 575, 892, Crozier v. P., 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 453 Crum'v. S., 148 Ind. 401, Crambley v. S., 61 Ga. 582, Crump V. Com., 75 Va. 922, Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927, 319, Cruse V. Aden, 127 111. 239, 365, 368, 371, 375, Crusen v. S., 10 Ohio St. 258, Crutcher v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 233, Culleri T. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 629, 439 Cullen V. S., 42 Conn. 55, Culp V. Com., 109 Pa. St. 363, Cumberland Canal y. Portland, 56 Me. 77, Cummlngs v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 128, Cummings v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 152, Cummins v. P., 42 Mich. 142, Cunneen t. S., 96 Ga. 406, Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, Cunningham v. Colonial Mortg. Co., 57 Kan. 678, Cunningham v. S., 73 Ala. 51, Cunningham v. S., 76 Ala. 88, 308, Cunningham v. S., 97 Ga. 214, Cunningham y. S., 56 Miss. 269, Cunningham v. S., 56 Neb. 691, Cunningham v. S., 61 N. J. L. 666, Cunningham v. S., 5 W. Va. 508, Cuppy V. S., 24 Ind. 389, Curkendall v. P., 36 Mich. 309, Curlin v. S., 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 144, Curran's Case, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 619, Curran v. P., 35 111. App. 275, Curran y. Taylor, 92 Ky. 537, Currier v. Mueller, 79 Iowa 316, Curry v. S.. 7 Tex. App. 91, Curtis V. Gordon, 62 Vt. 340, Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 52, Curtis y. P., Breese (III.) 260, 897, Curtis V. S., 118 Ala. 125, Curtis T. S., 26 Ark. 439, Curtis V. S., 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 9, Cutler V. S., 42 Ind. 244, Cutler y. S., 59 Ind. 300, 49 Cutler V. Ter., 8 Okla. 101, 418, Cutsinger v. Com., 7 Bush (Ky.) 392 Cutter y. P., 184 III. 395, Cutter V. Pool, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) •311, Cutter V. S., 36 N. J. L. 125, 399, 502, Cyrus V. S., 102 Ga. 616, 452 49 846 752 549 102 48 411 322 655 423 572 440 659 142 630 131 176 207 772 686 460 552 314 796 622 200 180 711 521 232 63S 240 521 388 463 896 449 649 898 251 899 121 725 , 52 426 312 856 833 620 10 D Dabney v. S., 113 Ala. 38, 3 Dacey y. P., 116 III. 575, 622, 624, 725, 727, 728, 730, 731, 787, 789, 857, 864, 869 Daftee y. Pennington, 1 Ala. 506, 785 Dahnke v. P., 168 111. 105, 431, 438 Dailey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 821, 305, 694 Dale v. S., 88 Ga. 552, 510 Dalton, Ex parte, 44 Ohio St. 143, 429 Dalzell V. S., 7 Wyo. 450, 132 XXX TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.'] Danaway v. P., 110 111. 333, 632 Dancy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 886, 144, 153 Daniel v. City of Athens, 110 Ga. 289 292 Daniel t. S., 55 Ga. 222, 798 Daniel v. S., 56 Ga. 653, 775 Daniel v. S., 103 Ga. 202, 12 Daniels v. Com., 7 Barr (Pa.) 375, 932 Daniels t. P., 21 lii. 442, 351 Daniels v. S., 110 Ga. 915, 291 Danljs T. Rodeheaver, 26 W. Va. 274, 911 DannenhotEer v. S., 69 Ind. 295, 53 Danner v. S., 54 Ala. 127, 202 Danner v. S., 89 Md. 220, 777 Dansley v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 105, 885 Darby v. College, 72 Ga. 212, 453 Darby v. S. (Fla.), 26 So. 315, 264 Darden v. S., 97 Ga. 407, 92 Dargan v. Davies, L. E. 2 Q. B. D. 118, 225 Darry v. P., 10 N. Y. 120, 38 Darst V. P., 51 111. 286, 343, 491 Darter v. Com., 9 Ky. L. 277, 712 Dashing v. S., 78 Ind. 357, 267, 667 DaughdriU v. S., 113 Ala. 7, 5, 25, 27 Daugherty v. S., 33 Tei. Cr. 173, 731 Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 54 Kan. 711 574 575 Davenport v. S., 112 Ala. 49, ' 309 Daves, In re, 81 N. C. 72, 464 Davidson v. Bohlman, 37 Mo. App. 576, 481 Davidson v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 540, 79 Davidson v. New C ''eans, 96 U. S. 97, 650 Davidson v. P., 90 111. 227, 38, 628, 776, 816 Davidson v. S., 22 Tex. App. 372, 409 Davidson v. S., 4 Tex. Cr. 285, 897 Davies v. S., 72 Wis. 54, 73 Davis's Case, 122 Mass. 324, 921 Davis y. Burgess. 54 Mich. 514, 289 Davis V. Carpenter, 172 Mass. 167, 519 Davis V. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 318, 511, 514, 703 Davis V. Com., 95 Ky. 19, 617 Davis V. Com., 98 Ky. 708. 546 Davis V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1295; 215 Davis V. Com. (Pa.), 7 Atl. 194, 503 Davis V. Davis, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 500, 433 Davis V. P., 19 111. 74, 900 Davis V. P., 50 111. 200, 518, 527 Davis V. P., 88 III. 350, 625 Davis V- P., 114 III. 86, 642, 787, 832, 861, 862, 865 Davis V. P., 1 Parli. Cr. (N. Y.) 447, 205 Davis V. S., 52 Ala. 357, 236, 245, 899 Davis V. S., 87 Ala. 10, 715 Davis V. S., 45 Arls. 359, 310 Davis V. S., 22 Fla. 633, 208 Davis V. S., 35 Pla. 614, 54 Davis V. S., 58 Ga. 170, 519 Davis V. S., 74 Ga. 869, 872 Davis V. S., 76 Ga. 721, 205, 405 Davis V. S., 6 Biacltf. (Ind.) 494, 528 Davis V. S., 35 Ind. 496, 900 Davis V. S., 100 Ind. 154, 569 Davis V. S., 39 Md. 355, 899 Davis V. S., 75 Miss. 637, 900 Davis V. S., 51 Neb. 310, 2, 21, 810 Davis V. S., 58 Neb. 465, 255 Davis V. S., 25 Ohio St. 369, 21 Davis V. S., 43 Tenn. 77, 203 Davis V. S., 42 Tex. 226, 80 Davis V. S., 43 Tex. 189, 74 Davis V. S., 22 Tex. App. 45, 95, 96 Davis V. S., 23 Tex. App. 210, 129 Davis V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 377, 113 Davis V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 548, 551 Davis V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 979 341 Davis' V. S., 38 Wis. 487, 740 Davis V. U. S., 160 U. S. 469, 622 Davis V. Walker, 60 111. 452, 770 Davison's Case, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 129, 456 Davison v. Cruse, 47 Neb. 829, 522, 524, 526 Davison v. P., 90 III. 221, 626, 695, 773, 872 Dawson, Ex parte, 83 Fed. 306, 922 Dawson v. S., 65 Ind. 442, 207 Dawson v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 535, 208, 210, 825 Day V. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 915, 669 Day V. Day, 4 Md. 262, 491 Day V. P., 76 III. 380, 892 Day V. S., 63 Ga. 669, 785 Day V, S. (Miss.), 7 So. 326,' 132 Day V. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 495, 311 Day V. S., 21 Tex. App. 213, 359 Dealy v. U. S., 152 U. S. 539, 325, 900 Dean v. S., 89 Ala. 46, 53 Dean v. S., 98 Ala. 71, 309, 314 Dean v. S. (Fla.), 26 So. 638, 108 Dean v. S., 43 Ga. 218, 896 Dean v. S., 93 Ga. 184, 881 Dean v. S., 29 Ind. 483, 523 Deaton, In re, 105 N. C. 59, 456, 460, 464, 892 Debardelaben v. S., 99 Tenn. 649, 561 De Beaukelear v. P., 25 111. Add. 460, ^^ 461 DeBerry v. S., 99 Tenn. 207, 82, 91 Debney y. S^ 45 Neb. 856, 42 De Bord v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 599, 680 Debs, In re, 158 U. S. 564, 432 Dechard v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. ^813, 181 Dee V. S., 68 Miss. 601, 484 De Forest v. U. S., 11 App. D. C. 458, 538 Defrese v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 53, 102, 125 Degener, Ex parte, 30 Tex. App. 566, 444 De Groat v. P., 39 Mich. 124, 530 Dehler v. S., 22 Ind. App. 383, 523 De Jonge v. Brenneman, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 332, 462 Delafolle v. S., 54 N. J. L. 381, 52 Delaney, Ex parte, 43 Cai. 478, 582 Delaney v. S., 51 N. J. L. 37, 300 Delaney v. S., 40 Tex. 601, 231 Delaney v. S., 41 Tex. 601, 235 Delany v. P., 10 Mich. 241, 534 Deller v. Plymouth Agrl. Soc, 57 Iowa 481, 566 De Loach v. S., 77 Miss. 691, 45 De Los Santos v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.). 22 S. W. 924, '^'^ ' 123 Delozier v. Bird, 123 N. C. 689, 432, 442 Dement, Ex parte, 53 Ala. 389, 444, 797 Dement v. S., 2 Head (Tenn.) 505, 262 Dempsey v. P., 47 111. 324, T^ ,, ^ . *-''• ''■06. 750, 820 Denham v. Watson, 24 Neb. 779, 527 Denley v. S. (Miss.), 12 So. 391, 176 TABLE OF CASES. XXXI [References are to Pages.} Denman t. S. (Tex. Cr.). 47 S. W. 366, 219, 220 Dennis v. S., 103 Ind. 142, 19 884 885 Dennison v. Page, 29 Pa. St. 420, ' 521 Denton t. S., 1 Swan (Tenn.) 279, 26 De Priest v. S., 68 Ind. 569, 528 Derby v. S., 60 N. J. L. 258, 305 Des Moines St. B. Co. T. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. K. Co., 74 Iowa 585, 442, 461 Devine, Ex parte, 74 Miss. 715, 923 Devlne v. P., 100 III. 290, 40, 908, 913 Devine v. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 625, 690 Devlin V. Hlnman, 161 N. Y. 115, 433 Devlin V. Hlnman, 57 N. Y. Supp. 663, 434 Devlin V. P., 104 111. 505, 858, 871 Devoe v. Com., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 316, 201 Devore v. Ter., 2 Okla. 562, 102 Devoto V. Com., 3 Mete. (Ky.) 417, 125 188 189 De Witt V. Superior Court (Cai.'), 47* Pac. 871, 443 De Young v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 41 S. W. 598 179 Dias V. S., 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 20, 17 Dick V. S., 30 Miss. 631, 92 Dick v. S., 53 Miss. 384, 240, 245 Dick V. S., 3 Ohio St. 89, ^ 899 Dickerson y. Gray, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 230 519 Dickerson v. S., 141 Ind. 703, 92 Dickey v. Reed, 78 111. 261, 445 Dickey v. S., 68 Ala. 508, 564 Diekhaut v. S., 85 Md. 451, 277 Dickson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 1, 337, 339 Dickson v. Ter. (Ariz.), 56 Pac. 971, 132 Diffey v. S., 86 Ala. 66, 308, 309 Digby V. P., 113 111. 125, 23, 26, 32 Diggs V. S., 49 Ala. 311, 142, 390 Dignowitty v. S., 17 Tex. 521, 100 Dilcher v. S., 39 Ohio St. 130, 409 Dilger v. Com., 88 Ky. 550, 52, 674, 685, 687 Dill V. P., 19 Colo. 469, 427 Dillard v. S., 41 Ga. 278, 556 Dillard v. S., 58 Miss. 868, 41 Dille V. S., 34 Ohio St. 617, 749 Dillingham v. S. (Tex.), 32 S. W. 771, 311 Dillon V. O'Brien, 16 Cox C. C. 245, 823 Dimick V. Downs, 82 111. 570, 790, 800 Dimon v. P., 17 111. 421, 351 Dines v. P., 39 111. App. 565, 452 Dingman v. P., 51 111. 279, 372, 659 Dinsmoor v. Commercial Trav. Assn., 14 N. Y. Supp. 676, 455 Dinsmore v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 445, 771 Disharoou v. S., 95 Ga. 351, 504 Dishon v. Smith, 10 Iowa 212, 388 Dismuke v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 20 S. W. 56^, 108 Dix V. S^ 89 Wis. 250, 153, 154 Dixon's Case, 3 Op. Att.-Gen. 622, 465 Dixon V. P., 168 111. 186, 444, 755, 796, 797 Dixon V. P., 63 111. App. 585, 437 Dixon V. S., 13 Pia. 636, 25, 30, 33 Dixon V. S., 105 Ga. 787. 343 Dixon V. S., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 312, 402 Dobbins v. S., 14 Ohio St. 493, 677 Dobbs V. S., 55 Ga. 272, 455 Dobson V. Cothran, 34 S. C. 518, 827 Dobson V. S., 57 Ind. 69, 369 Dobson V. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 843, 862 Doctor V. Hartman, 74 Ind. 221, 745 Dodd V. S., 33 Ark. 517, 207 Dodd V. S., 18 Ind. 56, 619 Dodds V. Board, 43 111. 95, 687 Dodge v. S., 140 Ind. 284, 439 Dodge V. S., 24 N. J. L. 455, 419 Dodge County v. Kemnitz, 28 Neb. 224, 519, 526 Dodson V. S., 86 Ala. 60, 35, 816 Dodson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 78, 351 Doering v. S., 49 Ind. 56, 51, 685 Doian V. P., 64 N. Y. 485, 760 Doles V. S., 97 Ind. 555, 32 Donaldson v. Com., 95 Pa. St. 21, 41 Donaldson v. S., 10 Ohio C. C. 613, 197 Donnelly v. S., 26 N. J. L. 463, 26 Donnersberger v. Prendergast, 128 111. 229, 645 Donnoly v. P^ 38 Mich. 756, 892 Donoghoe v. P., 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 120, 831 Donohoe v. S., 59 Ark. 375, 165, 176 Donovan v. P., 139 111. 414, 765, 767 Dooley v. S., 89 Ala. 90, 311 Doolin V. Com., 16 Ky. L. 189, 26 Doo Woon, In re, 18 Fed. 898, 921 Dorgan v. Granger, 76 Iowa 156, 461 Dorrs v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 311, 417, 419 Dorsey v. S., 106 Ala. 157, ' 823 Dorsey v. S., 107 Ala. 157, 779 Dorsey v. S., 110 Ala. 38, 177, 823 Dorsey v. S., Ill Ala. 40, 162, 177 Dorsey v. S., 108 Ga. 477, 92 Dorsey v. S., 125 Ind. 600, 356 Dorsey v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 527, 478 Doss V. P., 158 111. 662, 102, 905 Doss V. S., 21 Tex. App. 505, 127 Doss V. S., 28 Tex. App. 506, 123 Dotson V. S., 62 Ala. 141, 760 Dougherty v. Com., 69 Pa. St. 286, 887 Dougherty v. P., 1 Colo. 514, 494, 495 Dougherty v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 180, 343, 344 Dougherty v. P., 118 111. 164, 843, 912 Dougherty v. P., 124 111. 557, 929 Douglas V. Barber, 18 E. I. 459, 292 685 Douglas V. Com., 8 Watts (Pa.) 535, 499 Douglas V. S., 4 Wis. 403, 489 TDouthitt V. Ter., 7 Okla. 55, 857 Dove r. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 348, 622 793 Dove V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 105, ' 92 Dover v. S., 109 Ga. 485, 35 Dowdy V. S., 96 Ga. 653, 8 Dowlen v. S., 14 Tex. App. 61, 53 Downey v. S., 90 Ala. 644, 564 Downey v. S., 110 Ala. 99, 564, 572 Downey v. S., 115 Ala. 108, 564 Downs V. Com., 92 Ky. 605, 693 Doyle V. P., 147 111. 394, 743, 869 Doyle V. S., 39 Fia. 155, 75, 91 Doyle V. S.. 77 Ga. 513, 214 Doyle V. S., 17 Ohio 222, 693 Drake v. S„ 68 Ala. 510, 663 Drake v. S., 145 Ind. 210, 16 Drake v. S., 14 Neb. 535, 304, 538, 541 Drake v. S., 5 Tex. App. 649, 656 Drayton's Case, 5 Op. Att.-Gen. 574, 465 Drechsel v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 580, 376 Dreessen v. S., 38 Neb. 375, 846 Drennan v. Douglas, 102 111. 341, 521 Drennan v. P., 10 Mich. 169, 686 Drew V. Hilliker, 56 Vt. 641, 274 Drew V. S., 124 Ind. 9, 832 XXXll TABLE OF CASES. [Referenees are to Pages.2 Dreyer v. P., 176 III. 590, 150, 701, 711 Dreyer v. P., 188 111. 46, 676, 710, 774 Dreyer v. S., 11 Tex. App. 503, 117 Driggers v. S., 123 Ala. 46, 309 Drlnkall v. Spiegel, 68 Conn. 441, 917 Driscoll V. P., 47 Mich. 417, 801 Dritt V. Dodde, 35 Ind. 63, 911 Dronebergei- v. S., 112 Ind. 105, 735 Drought V. S., 101 Ga. 544, 159, 170, 179 Drury v. Ter., 9 Okla. 398, 631 Drye y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 65, 767 Dryer y. P., 176 III. 590, 145 Dryman v. S., 102 Ala. 130, 831, 869 Du Bois V. S., 50 Ala. 139, 131 Du Bois V. S., 87 Ala. 101, 367 Ducommun y. Hysinger, 14 111. 249, 828 Dudley v. S., 91 Ind. 312, 370 Dudley v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 543, 81 Dudney y. S., 22 Ark. 251, 567 Duffles V. S., 7 Wis. 672, 526 Duffln V. P., 107 111. 119, 255, 265, 840, 856, 898 Dutfy V. P., 26 N. Y. 588, 778, 816 Duflfy V. S., 154 Ind. 250, 215 Dugan V. S., 125 Ind. 130, 356 Dugdale v. Reg., 1 El. & Bl. 435, 252 Duggins V. S., 66 Ind. 350, 735 Dugle V. S., 100 Ind. 259, 238, 768 Duke V. S., 19 Tex. App. 14, 340 Duke V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 283, 788 Dukehart v. Coughman, 36 Neb. 412, 522, 527 Dukes v. S., 94 Ga. 393, 258 Dulin V. Lillard, 91 Va. 718, 675 Dumas v. S., 63 Ga. 600, 19 Dumas v. S., 14 Tex. App. 464, 514 Dunaway v. P., 110 111. 333, 3, 48; 58 Dunbar v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 596, 566 Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S. 185 610, 827 Duncan y. Com., 6 Dana (Ky.) 295, 670 Duncan y. Com., 36 Ky. 295, 297 Duncan y. Com., 85 Ky. 614, 202, 208 Duncan v. P., 1 Scam. (III.) 457, 716 Duncan v. P., 134 111. 118, 43 Duncan v. S., 49 Miss. 331, 224, 282 Duncan v. Seeley, 34 Mich. 369, 798 Dunford y. Weayer, 84 N. Y. 445, 451 Dunham v. Park Comrs., 87 111. 185, 908 Dunlop V. U. S., 165 D. S. 486, 556, 558, 559 Dunn V. P., 40 111. 469, 575, 577 Dunn V. P., 109 111. 646, 622, 623, 642, 728, 729, 735, 857, 864 Dunn y. P., 158 111. 593, 51, 55, 59, 846 Dunn V. P., 172 III. 595, 24, 34, 35, 797 Dunn V. P., 29 N. Y. 533, 493 Dunn V. S., 82 Ga. 27, 385 Dunn y. S., 58 Neb. 807, 88 Dunne v. P., 94 111. 120, 646 Dunston v. S. (Ala.), 27 So. 333, 310 Durand v. P., 47 Mich. 332, 219 Durant, In re, 60 Vt. 176, 688 Durham y. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 173, 670, 671, 708, 709 Durham v. P., 49 111. 233, 527 Durland y. U. S., 161 U. S. 306, 603 Durrett v. S., 62 Ala. 434, 108 Dutcher v. S., 18 Ohio 317, 194 Duty V. S., 9 Ind. App. 595, 401 Duvall V. S., 63 Ala. 12, 131 Dwyer, In re, 35 N. Y. Supp. 885, 576 Dyer v. P., 84 111. 625, 884, 891 Dyer v. S., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 509, 720 Dyers v. Com., 42 Pa. St. 89, 648 Dyson v. S., 26 Miss. 362, 773 Eads V. Brazelton, 22 Ark. 499, 462 Earle v. U. S. (The Coquitlam), 77 Fed. 744, 60T Earn V. P., 73 III. 331, 56, 500, 642, 899, 911 Earn V. P., 99 111. 124, 498, 749 Early v. Com., 86 Va. 921, 238 Rarp y. S., 55 Ga. 136, 813 Earp y. S. (Tex.), 13 S. W. 888, 565 Easdale y. Reynolds, 143 Mass. 126, 524 Easley v. Com. (Pa.), 11 Atl. 220, 528 Eastham v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1639, 366 East Kingston v. Towle, 48 N. H. 57, 647 Eastman v. P., 93 111. 112, 911 Eastman v. P., 71 111. App. 236, 482 East New Brunswick & N. B. Turn- pike Co. V. Raritan River E. Co. (N. J. L.), 18 Atl. 670, 46S Easton v. S., 39 Ala. 552, 456 Eberle, Matter of, 44 Kan. 472, 177 Eberling v. S., 136 Ind. 117, 71 Echols V. S., 110 Ga. 257, 294 Eckart, In re, 166 D. S. 481, 929 Eckels V. S., 20 Ohio St. 508, 99 Eddy V. Gray, 86 Mass. 435, 525, 526 EdelhofE V. S., 5 Wyo. 19, 149, 152, 153, 864 Eden v. P., 161 111. 303, 78, 355, 646, 647, 650 Edgerton v. S., 67 Ind. 588. 357 Bdgington y. U. S., 164 D. S. 361, 829 Edison y. Edison, 56 Mich. 185, 431 Edmond v. S., 25 Fla. 268, 522 Edmonds v. S., 70 Ala. 8, 99 Edmonson v. S., 41 Tex. 496, 26 Edmonson y. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 154, 92 E. D. P. V. S., 18 Pla. 175, 520, 662 Edson V. Edson, 108 Mass. 590, 662 Edson y. S., 148 Ind. 283, 115, 116 Edwards, Ex parte, 11 Fla. 174, 460 Edwards y. Com., 78 Va. 39, 875 Edwards v. Derrickson, 28 N. J. L. 39 194 Edwards v. Knight, 8 Ohio 875, 520 Edwards v. S., 49 Ala. 336, 773 Edwards v. S., 25 Ark. 444, 735 Edwards v. S., 27 Ark. 493, 702, 820 Edwards v. S., 39 Fla. 753, 22 Edwards v. S., 45 N. J. L 419, 777 Edwards v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 387, 193 Eells V. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 512, 667 Eggart V. S., 40 Pla. 527, 709 Egleson v. Battles, 26 Vt. 548, 519 Eighmy v. P., 79 N. Y. 546, 417 Eikenberry v. Edwards, 67 Iowa 619, 434 Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 31, 446 Eilers y. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 344, 136 Eisenman y. S., 49 Ind. 511, 362 Elder v. Chapman, 176 111. 142, 575 Eldredge v. S., 37 Ohio St. 191, 891 892 Eldridge v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1088*, 255, 259, 260 Eldridge v. S., 27 Fla. 162, 340 Eldridge y. S., 76 Miss. 353, 264 Elkin y. P., 28 N. Y. 177, 324 Elkins V. S.. 35 Tex. Cr. 207, 250 Eller V. P., 153 111. 346, 793, 861, 863 Elliott v. P., 22 Colo. 466, 624 Elliott y. S., 26 Ala. 78, 570 Elliott V. S., 46 Ga. 159, 52 Kills V. P., 159 III. 340, 856 TABLE OF CASES. XXXIH [References are to Pages.1 Ellis V. S., 120 Ala. 333, 58 Ellis V. S., 92 Tenn. 85, 694 Ellis V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 86, 834 Ellzey V. S., 57 Miss. 827, 319 KIsberry v. S., 41 Tex. 158, 567 Elsey V. S., 47 Ark. 572, 318 Eisner v. Shrigley, 80 Iowa 80, 908 Emery's Case, 107 Mass. 172, 429, 489, 440, 446 Emlg V. Daum, 1 Ind. App. 146, 236 Emmanuel, In re, 6 City H. B. (N. Y.) 33, 318 Emmerson v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 89, 132 Empson v. P., 78 III. 248, 695 Endicott v. Mathis, 9 N. J. Eq. 110, 445 Engeman v. S., 54 N. J. L. 257, 301 England, Ex parte, 23 Tex. App. 90, 691 England v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 379, 338, 341 Englehardt v. S., 88 Ala. 100, 618 Engleman v. S., 2 Ind. 91, 122 English V. S., 31 Fla. 340, 693 English V. S., 35 Tex. 473, 312 Enright v. P., 155 111. 35, 43, 624, 625, 861, 863 Epperson v. S., 5 Lea (Tenn.) 291, 24 Epperson v. S., 42 Tex. 80, 168 Epps V. S., 102 Ind. 539, 35, 589, 617, 696, 744, 748, 798 803, 838, 909 Erickson v. S., 2 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 65, 803 Erlinger t. P., 36 111. 461, 529 Brskine v. Com., 8 Gratt. (Va.) 624, 285 Ervington v. P., 181 111. 408, 54 Erwiu V. S., 29 Ohio St. 186, 624, 625, 626, 766!, 769. Erwin V. S., 10 Tex. App. 700, 624 Eslava V. S., 49 Ala. 3o7, 311 Espalla V. S., 108 Ala. 38, 248 Estes V. S., 55 Ga. 131, 897 Estes T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 838, 59 Estrado, Ex parte, 88 Cal. 816, 67 Ethridge v. S., 124 Ala. 106, 245 Etress v. S., 88 Ala. 191, 309, 314 Eubank v. S., 105 Ga. 612, 284 Eubanks v. P., 41 111. 487, 726, 730 Enbanks v. S., 82 Ga. 62, 207 Eubanks v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.t 488, 560, 562 Eubanks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 973, 311 Eureka, etc.. Canal Co. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. 311, 449 Evans v. George, 80 III. 51, 862 Evans v. Hettick, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 453 785 Evans' v. P., 90 III. 389, 316, 330 Evans v. S., 80 Ala. 4, 215. Evans v. S., 109 Ala. 11, 830 Evans v. S., 58 Ark. 47, 20, 26, 27, 817 Evans v. S., 101 Ga. 780, 368 Evans v. S., 44 Miss. 762, 11 Evans v. S., 24 Ohio St. 458, 242 Evans v. S., 6 Ohio N. P. 129, 482 Evans v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 54, 151 Evans v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 31 S. W. 648, 730 Evans v. U. S., 153 U. S. 584, 702, 703 Everage v. S., 113 Ala. 102, 327 Everett v. S., 62 Ga. 65, 835 Everhart v. S., 47 Ga. 608, 815 Evers, Ex parte, 29 Tex. App. 539, 655 Swell V. S." 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 364, 534 Ewing V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 381, 627 hughes' c. l. — iii Exon V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 336, Eyman v. P., 1 Gilm. (111.) 7, Ezeta, In re, 62 Fed. 972, F Fahey v. S., 62 Miss. 402, Fairbanks v. P., 147 111. 315, Fairchild v. Bascomb. 35 Vt. 406, Paire v. S., 58 Ala. 74, Fairley v. S., 63 Miss. 338, Fairy V. S., 18 Tex App. 814, Falco V. P., 30 Mich. 200, Falk V. Flint, 12 E. I. 14, Palk V. P., 42 111. 335, 45, 643, Fall V. Overseer, 3 Munt. (Va.) 495, Falvey, In re, 7 Wis. 630, Falvey v. S^ 85 Ga. 157, 205, Fannin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 280, Panning v. Com., 120 Mass. 888, Panning v. S., 66 Ga. 167, 214, 215, Fanshawe v. Tracy, 4 Biss. 490, _ _ _.. 776, 202, 367, 749, '80, Pant V. P., 45 III. 263 Panton, In re, 55 Neb. 708, Pantou V. S., 50 Neb. 351, Farley v. P., 138 111. 100, Farley v. S., 127 Ind. 419, Parlinger v. S., 110 Ga. 813, Farmer v. P., 77 111. 324, Parmer v. S., 95 Ga. 498, Farmer v. S., 100 Ga. 41, Parrell's Case, Andr. 298, Farrell v. P., 16 111. 506, Parrell v. P., 183 111. 247, Farrell v. S., 54 N. J. L. 416, Parrell v. S., 32 Ohio St. 456, Farrell v. Weltz, 160 Mass. 288, Farrls v. P., 129 111. 521, 41, 824, Parris v. S., 8 Ohio St. 159, Faulkner v. Ter., 6 N. M. 464, Faustre v. Com., 92 Ky. 84, Favro v. S., 89 Tex. Cr. 452, Pay V. Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 912, 168, 170, 172, Peilden v. P., 128 III. 599, Peinberg v. P., 174 111. 609, 747, Peister v. P., 125 111. 349, Felder v. S., 23 Tex. App. 477, Felker v. S., 54 Ark. 489, Fellinger v. P., 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 128 Pelton V. S., 139 Ind. 531, 75, Fennell v. S., 82 Tex. 378, Penton, Ex parte, 77 Cal. 183, Fenton v. S., 100 Ind. 598, Penwick v. S., 63 Md. 239, Perens v. O'Brien, L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 21, Ferguson v. P., 73 111. 559, Ferguson v. P., 90 111. 512, 57, Ferguson v. S., 49 Ind. 38, Ferguson v. S., 71 Miss. 805, 548, 551, Ferguson v. S., 52 Neb: 432, Ferguson v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 60, Feriter v. S., 88 Ind. 283, Ferner v. S., 151 Ind. 247, Ferrel v. Com., 15 Ky. L. 321, Perrlas v. P., 71 111. App. 559, Ferris v. P., 35 N. Y. 125, 759, Ferris v. S. (Ind.), 59 ,N. E. 475, 174, Fertig V. S., 100 Wis. 301, Field V. Com., 89 Va. 690, 884, 76 401 92a, 364 58 803 909 379' llOi 367' 462r 74T 525 440 206 310 88T 219i 433 372 929 872 902 207 128-. 75» 728 178 446 103 869' 655- 36r S2a 825- 54 730 514 210 176 887 885 210 34 747 204 , 9£ 586: 679- 361 635 102 385 34.H 2 552 193; 420- 856- 484 832 22». 761 90* 4 886 xxxiv TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.'] Field V. S., 24 Tex. App. 422, 207 Pielden v. P., 128 III. 603, 888, 908, 911 Fielding v. La Grange, 104 Iowa 530, 362 Fielding v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 52 S. W. 69 362 Field's V. S., 47 Ala. 603, 12, 829 Fields V. S., 52 Ala. 348, 762 Fields V. S., 134 Ind. 46, 13 Fields V. Ter., 1 Wyo. 78, 384, 844 Filer v. New York Cent., etc., E. Co., 49 N. Y. 46, 804 Filkins v. P., 69 N. T. 101, 60, 633 Filton, Matter of, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 303, 442 Finch V. S., 81 Ala. 41, 814 Finkefetein v: S., 105 Ga. 617, 103 Finlan v. S. (Tex. App.) 13 S. W. 866, 211 Finn v. Com., 5 Band. (Va.) 701, 28, 787 Finnegan v. Dugan, 96 Mass. 197, 525 Finnem v. S., 115 Ala. 106, 223 First Nat. Bank v. Fitzpatriek, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 75, 460 TPisclier v. Hays, 6 Fed. 63, 430 Fishback t. 8., 131 Ind. 304, 436, 438, 439 JFisher v. P., 23 111. 231, 747, 778 Fisher v. P., 103 111. 104, 380, 383 Fisher v. S., 46 Ala. 717, 124 Fisher v. S., 93 Ga. 309, 209 JTisher v. S., 52 Neb. 531, 131 T-isher v. S., 40 N. J. L. 169, 199 Fisk. Ex parte, 113 U. S. 713, 448, 459 Fisk V. S., 9 Neb. 62, 710 Fitch V. Com., 92 Va. 824, 417, 420 Fitch v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 500, 38 Pite V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 4. 260 Fitts V. S., 102 Tenn. 141, 679 Fitzgerald v. S., 12 Ga. 213, 314 Fitzgerald v. S., 50 N. J. L. 475, 137 Fitzgerald v. S., 4 Wis. 412, 693 Fitzpatriek v. Daily States Pub. Co., 48 La. 1116; 340 Fitzpatriek v. P., 98 111. 274, 632, 696,' 739, 776, 891 Fitzpatriek v. S., 37 Ark. 373, 384 Fitzpatriek v. U. S.. 178 U. S. 304, 327 Fixmer v. P., 153 111. 128, 638, 706, 707 Flagg T. P., 40 Mich. 706, 812 Flanagan v. P., 52 N. Y. 467, 623 Fleener v. S., 58 Ark. 98, 134, 146, 147, 149, 155 Fleetwood f. Com., 80 Ky. 1, 685, 688 Fleming v. P., 27 N. Y. 329, 513 Fleming v. S.. 136 Ind. 149, 102, 103 Fiemister v. S., 81 Ga. 766, 830 Fletcher v. P., 52 111. 396, 73, 902 Fletcher v. P., 81 111. 117, 892 Fletcher v. P., 117 111. 189, 13, 884, 885 Fletcher v. S., 12 Ark. 169, 741 Fletcher v. S., 93 Ga. 180, 207 Fletcher v. S., 49 Ind. 124, 262 Flick V. Com., 97 Va. 766, 549, 553 Fliun V. Prairie Co.. 60 Ark. 204, 797 Flommerfelt v. Zellers, 7 N. J. L. 31, 449 Florez t. S., 11 Tex. App. 102, 391 Floyd V. S., 79 Ala. 39, 468 Floyd V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 342, 51 Floyd V. S., 7 Tex. 215, 440 Flynn v. S., 34 Ark. 441, 563 Flynn v. S., 42 Tex. 301, 99 Flynn v. S., 8 Tex. App. 368, 57 Flynn v. S., 97 Wis. 44, 17 Fogarty v. S., 80 Ga. 450, 872 Foley, Ex parte, 62 Cal. 508, 582 Foley V. P., Breese (111.) 58, 661 Foley V. S., 59 N. J. L. 1, 545, 551, 552 Foil V. P., 66 III. App. 405, 357 Folwell V. S., 49 N. J. L. 31, 282, 633 Foote V. P., 17 Hun (N. Y.) 218, 161 Ford V. Com., 16 Ky. L. 628, 418 Ford V. S., 123 Ala. 81, 564, 566, 572 Ford V. S., 91 Ga. 162, 886 Ford V. S., 92 Ga. 459, 123 Ford V. S., 112 Ind. 373, 243, 835 Ford V. S., 12 Md. 514, 899, 901 Ford V. S., 73 Miss. 734, 622 Ford V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 280, 885 Ford V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 846, 92 Ford V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 54 S. W. 761, 208 Ford V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 918, 675 Ford V. Smith, 62 N. H. 419, 522 Forde V. Skinner, 4 C. & P. 494, 53 Foreman v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 477, 293 Foresythe v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 371, 123 Forrest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 16, 433, 459 Forsythe t. Winans, 44 Ohio St. 277 432 Fortenberry v. S., 56 Miss. 286, 142 Poss, Ex parte, 102 Cal. 847, 910 Foster, Ex parte, 5 Tex. App. 625, 690 Foster v. Com., 96 Va. 306, 79 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 373 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 254, 918 Foster v. P., 1 Colo. '293, 97 Foster v. P., 18 Mich. 266, 836 Foster v. P., 63 N. Y. 619, 206, 209 Foster V. S., 88 Ala. 182, 898 Foster V. S., 45 Ark. 361, 362 Foster v. S; (Del.), 43 Atl. 265, 140 Foster v. S., 71 Md. 553, 115 Poster V. S., 52 Miss. 695, 120 Foster V. S., 21 Tex. App. 80, 127 Foster v. Ter. (Ariz.), 56 Pac. 738, 626 Foster v. Ter., 1 Wash. St. 411, 568 Fountain v. West, 23 Iowa 10, 764 Pouts V. S., 8 Ohio St. 98, 750 Fowler v. S., 100 Ala. 96, 116 Fox V. Ohio, 5 How. (U. S.) 410, 653, 666, 667 Fox V. P., 95 111. 78, 252, 263, 477, 748 Fox V. S., 89 Md. 381, 477 Fox V. S.. 34 Ohio St. 337, 898 FoxweU V. S., 63 Ind. 539, 858 Frain v. S., 40 Ga. 529, 898 France v. S., 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 478, 576 France t. U. S., 164 D. S. 676, 575 Prances v. S., 6 Fla. 313, 907 Francis v. Rosa, 151 Mass. 532, 523 527 Franco v. S., 42 Tex. 276, ' 208 Prank Forgotston, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1118, 371 Frank v. S., 27 Ala. 37, 328 Prank v. S., 39 Miss. 705, 207 Prank v. S., 94 Wis. 211, 624 Franklin v. S., 28 Ala. 12, 907 Franklin v. S., 69 Ga. 36, 822 Franklin v. S., 85 Ga. 570, 670, 679 Franklin v. S., 91 Ga. 713, 417 Franklin v. S., 5 Baxt. (Tenn.) 613, 842 Franklin t. S., 27 Tex. App. 136, 59 Franklin v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 203, 82 Franklin v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 346, 426 Franks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 1013, 208 TABLE OF CASES. XXXV IBeferences are to Pages.'] Fraser v. S., 55 Ga. 325, 38 Frazier v. S., 85 Ala. 17, 103 Frazier v. S., 135 Ind. 38, 205, 208, 825 Frazier v. S., 5 Mo. 536, 359 Frazier v. S., 23 Ohio St. 551, 769 Frazier v. S., 39 Tex. 390, 586 Freeland v. P., 16 111. 383, 58, 343, 345, 669, 671, 675 Freeman v. City of Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 433, 445, 448, 455 Freeman v. P., 54 III. 162, 628 Freeman v. S., 19 Fla. 552, 424 Freeman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 14 S. W. 170, 291 Freese v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 189 123 Freiberg v. S., 94 Ala. 91, 361 Freideborn v. Com., 113 Pa. St. 242, , 353 Freleigh t. S., 8 Mo. 606, 577, 734 French v. Commercial Nat. Bk., 79 111. App. 110, 433 French v. P., 77 111. 532, 914 French v. S., 94 Ala. 93, 314 French v. S., 85 Wis. 400, 620, 887 French v. S., 93 Wis. 325, 834 Frcshour v. Logansport, etc., Co., 104 Ind. 463, 911 Freund t. P., 5 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 198, 242 Frey v. Calhoun Circuit Judge, 107 Mich. 130, 744 Friday, Kx parte, 43 Fed. 916, 890 Friday, Ex parte, 8 Am. C. R. 351, 928 " ■ " 164, 189, 836, 885 Friedberg v' parte • P., 102 111. 164, Frink v. King, 3 Scam. (111.) 144, ' 908 Fritz T. S., 40 Ind. 18, 296 Frorer v. P., 141 111. 186, 646, 647 Frost V. Com., 48 Ky. 362, 506 Fry T. Kaessuer, 48 Neb. 133, 685 Fry V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 582, 420 Fulcher v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 621, 104, 136 Fnlkner v. S., 3 Helsk. (Tenn.) 33, 752 Fuller V. Hampton, 5 Conn. 416, 523 Fuller V. P., 92 111. 184, 557, 845, 702, 704 Fuller V. S., 109 Ga. 809, 811 Fuller v. S., 12 Ohio St. 433, 643 Fulmer t. Com., 97 Pa. St. 503, . Ill Fulton V. S., 13 Ark. 168, 128, 135, 154 Funderburk v. S., 75 Miss. 20, 225, 227 Funk V. S., 149 Ind. 338, 176 G Gabe v. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. 413, 426 Gabliok v. P., 40 Mich. 292, 120, 121, 122, 124 Gabriel v. S., 40 Ala. 357, 118 Gaddis v. S., 91 Ga. 148, 886 Gafford, Ex parte (Nev.), 57 Pac. 484, 891, 930 Gage V. Shelton, 3 Rich. L. (S. C.) 242, 232 Gahagan v. P., 1 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 378. 514 Gahan v. P., 58 III. 160, 850 Gaines v. Com., 50 Pa. St. 319, 824 Gaines v. S., 89 Ga. 366, 207 Gaines v. S., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 410, 582 Gaines v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 73, 378 Gaines v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 623, 2, 36 Gainey v. P., 97 III. 270, 624, 643, 774, 866, 886 Gallagher v. P., 88 111. 335, 929 Gallagher v. P., 120 111. 182, 379, 721 Galiaher v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 296, 735, 768 Gallardo v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 974 152 Gallimore v. Dazey, 12 111. 143, 745 Galloway v. S., 41 Tex. 289, 122 Galvln V. S., 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 295, 308 Gamel v. S., 21 Tex. App. 357, 541 Gandy v. S., 82 Ala. 61, 588, 591, 593 Gandy v. S., 23 Neb. 436, 425, 472, 731, 755 Gannon, In re, 60 Cal. 541, 437, 463, 605 Gannon v. P., 127 111. 518, 671, 719 744, 749, 819, 845, 847, 888 Gant V. Gant, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 464, 445 Garcia v. S., 34 Fla. 311, 735 Garcia v. S., 26 Tex. 209, 119, 127 Garcia v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 504,' • 132 Gardiner, In re, 64 N. T. Supp. 760, 718 Gardner, Ex parte, 22 Nev. 280, 434 Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 88, 697, 750, 737, 738, 769, 770, 795, 914 Gardner v. P., 20 111. 434, 372, 658, 669 Gardner v. P., 106 111. 79, 45 Gardner v. P., 62 N. Y. 299, 619 Gardner v. S., 90 Ga. 310, 833 Gardner v. S., 55 N. J. L. 17, 755 Garlington v. S., 97 Ga. 629, 181 Garmire v. S., 104 Ind. 444, 249 Garner v. Com.(Va.), 26 S. E. 507, 243 Garner v. S., 28 Fla. 113, 50, 745, 830 Garner v. S., 100 Ga. 257, 175 Garner v. S., 76 Miss. 515, 764, 765 Garner v. S., 36 Tex. 693, 119 Garnett v. S., 1 Tex. App. 605, 47 Garrett v. S., 97 Ala. 18, 832 Garrett v. S., 109 Ind. 527, 235, 236 Garrett v. S., 49 N. J. L. 94, 489 Garrett v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 285, 308, 314 Garrett v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 501. 41 Garrigus v. S., 93 Ind. 239, 446 Garris v. S., 35 Ga. 247, 99 Garrison v. McGregor, 51 III. 474, 560 Garrison v. P., 87 111. 97, 711 Garrison v. S., 14 Ind. 287, 300 Garrison v. S., 6 Neb. 274, 74 Garrity v. P., 70 III. 83, 59, 219, 220 Garrity v. P., 107' 111. 162, 122, 615 Garry v. Northwestern, etc., Aid Ass'n, 87 Iowa 25, 143 Garst, Ex parte, 10 Neb. 78, 679 Garver v. Ter., 5 Okla. 342, 469 Garvey's Case, 7 Colo. 384, 9, 17, 670, 878, 928, 929 Garvin v. S., 52 Miss. 207, 525 Gaskin v. S., 105 Ga. 631, 76 Gates, In re, 17 W. N. C. (Pa.) 142, 436 Gates V. Higgins, L. R. 1 Q. B..166, 223 Gates V. P., 14 III. 437, 763, 788, 795, 812, 816 Gates V. S., 71 Miss. 874, 250, 259 Gatewood v. S., 4 Ohio 386, 120 Gaunt V. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, „ , „ , 505, 524, 525 Gayle v. S., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 466, 312 Gear v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. „ 285, 127, 896 Gebbie v. Mooney, 121 111. 255, 907, 908 Gebhardt v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 27 S. W. 136, 148 xxxvi TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages."] Gebhart v. Shlndle, 15 S. & E. (Pa.) 235, T85 Gedye v. P., 170 111. 288, 31 Geier t. Shade, 109 Pa. St. 180, 466 Geisler, Ex parte, 50 Fed. 411, 267 Gemmill v. S., 16 Ind. App. 154, 523 Gentile v. S.. 29 Ind. 409, 274 Gentry v. S., 6 Ga. 503, 258 George v. P., 167 111. 417. 139, 647 651, 659. 705, 716, 777, 875 876 George v. S., 59 Neb. 163, 129, 187, 672 George t. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 646, 409 George v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 386, 308, 314 Gerard v. P., 3 Seam. (111.) 363, 671, 674 Gerard v. S., 10 Tex. App. 690, 138 Gernstenkorn v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 621, 380, 382 Getstaff V. Seliger, 43 Wis. 297, 520 GIbboney v. Com., 14 Gratt. (Va.) 588, 564 (jlbbons V. P., 23 111. 466, 562, 774, 775, 792 Gibbs V. Dewey, 5 Cow. (N. T.) 503, 397 Gibson, Ex parte, 31 Cal. 619, 891 Gibson v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. Ill, 678 Gibson v. S., 44 Ala. 17, 417 Gibson v. S., 89 Ala. 121, 829 Gibson v. S., 68 Miss. 241, 889 Gifford V. P., 87 111. 210, 92, 789, 790, 800, 825, 830 Gifford V. P., 148 III. 176, 800, 830, 833 Gile V. P., 1 Colo. 60, 856 Gill T. P., 42 111. 323, 744 Gillespie V. P., 176 III. 241, 110, 693, 743, 783, 888, 928 Gillespie V. P., 188 III. 176, 648 Gillock V. P., 171 111. 309, , 196, 200 Oilman v. P., 178 111. 19, 857, 910 Gilmanton v. Ham, 38 N. H. 108, 525 Gilmore, Ex parte, 71 Cal. 624, 890 Gilmore, In re, 61 Kan. 857. 931 Gilmore v. P., 87 111. App. 128, 717 Gilmore V. S., 99 Ala. 154, 208 Gilmore v. S. (Tex.), 13 S. W. 646, 132 Gilson V. Powers. .16 111. 355, 738 GIndrat v. P., 138 111. 112, 126, 823 Giozza T. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 373 Gipson V. S., 38 Miss. 295, 901 Girts v. Com., 22 Pa. St. 351, 891 Gise V. Com., 81 Pa. St. 428, 509, 517 Gitchell V. P., 146 111. 178, 734 Givens v. S., 109 Ala. 39, 743 Givens v. S., 40 Fla. 200, 211 Givens v. S., 103 Tenn. 648, 771, 776 Givens v. Van Studditord, 86 Mo. 149, 538 Glackan v. Com., 3 Mete. (Ky.) 232, 166 Glenn v. S., 116 Ala. 483, 250 Glennon v. Britton, 155 III. 237, 573, 649, 683, 915 Glover v. S., 109 Ind. 391, 389, 394, 705, 723 Glover v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 46 S. W. ■ 824, 210 Godcbarles v. Wlgeman, 113 Pa. St. 431, 647 Goddard v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 578, 383 Godfrey v. P., 63 N. Y. 207, 94, 96 Godfrey v. S., 31 Ala. 323. 617 Godfriedson v. P., 88 111. 286, 361, 901 Godwin v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 466, 36 Goff V. Prime, 26 Ind. 196, 9 Goins V. S., 46 Ohio St. 457, „„„ „„. 317, 327, 638, 771 Golden v. S., 1 S. C. 292, 52 Golden v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 143, 804, 540 Goldin V. S., 104 Ga. 549, 77 Golding V. S., 31 Fla. 262, 673 Goldsmith v. S., 99 Ga. 253, 312 Goldstein v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 23 S. W. 686, 114,445 Goldstein v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 S. W. 289, 564 Gomez v. S., 15 Tex. App. 64, 124 Gomprecht v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 434, 563 Gonzales v. S., 32 T*x. Cr. 611, 89 Good V. P., 184 111. 396, 485 Goodall V. P., 123 111. 394, 654, 664 Goode V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 505, 788 Goode V. U. S., 159 U. S. 666, 147, 559, 606, 619 Goodhue v. P., 94 111. 37, 128, 148, 154, 723, 750, 759 Goodin V. S., 16 Ohio St. 344, 740 Goodno V. City of Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127, 658 Goodwin V. S., 96 Ind. 550, 803 Gordan v. Buckles, 92 Cal. 481, 450 Gordan v. S., 48 N. J. L. 611, 410 Gordon, Ex parte, 92 Cal. 478, 450, 451 Gordon v. Com., 92 Pa. St. 216, 786 Gordon v. P., 33 N. Y. 501, 870 Gordon v. S., 52 Ala. 308, 591, 596 Gordon v. S., 71 Ala. 315, 111 Gordon v. S., 93 Ga. 531, 79. Gordon v. S.. 13 Tex. App. 196, 888 Gore V. P., 162 111. 260, - 795, 807, 809, 810, 811, 908 Gore V. S., 58 Ala. 391, 506 Gorman v. Com., 124 Pa. St. 536, 522 Gorman v. S., 23 Tex. 646, 515 Gosha V. S., 56 Ga. 36, 75, 84? Gott V. P., 187 111. 249. 766, 775, 866 Gould V. P., 89 111. 217, 720, 721, 742 Grace, Ex parte, 12 Iowa 208, 446 Grace v. Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533, 663 Grady v. P., 125 111. 124, 885, 889, 928 Graff V. Evans, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 373, 368 Graff V. P., 134 111. 382, 779 Graham v. Monsergh, 22 Vt. 543, 519 Graham v. P., 115 111. 569, 182, 183, 704, 716, 746, 854, 911 Graham v. P., 135 111. 442, 588 Graham v. P., 35 111. App. 568, 914 Graham v. S., 40 Ala. 659, 231 Grandison v. S., 29 Tex. App. 186, 423 Grand Jury, In re, 62 Fed. 840, 601 Granison v. S., 117 Ala. 22, 234 Grant v. Barry, 91 Mass. 459, 519 Grant v. Fagan, 4 East 190, 690 Grant v. P., 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 528, 543 Grant v. S., 55 Ala. 201, 114, 131 Grant v. S., 97 Ala. 35, 862 Grant v. S., 33 Fla. 291, 901 Grant v. S., 35 Fla. 581, 149 Grant v. S., 89 Ga. 393, 572- Grant v. S., 97 Ga. 789, 884 Grant v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 527, 564 Grate v. S., 23 Tex. App. 458, 885 Gravatt v. S„ 25 Ohio St. 162, 153 Gravely v. Com., 86 Va. 396, 205, 209, 210 Gravely v. S.. 38 Neb. 871, 807 Graves v. Adams, 8 Vt. 130, 522 Graves v. Colwell, 90 111. 612, 847 Graves v. Graves, 36 Iowa 310, 662 Graves v. Horgan, 21 R, I. 493, 765 Graves v. P., 18 Colo. 170, 23, 845, 872 TABLE OF CASES. ZXZVll {.References are to Pages.'! Graves v. S., 45 N. J. L. 203, 42, 621 Graves v. S., 12 Wis. 591, 120 Gravett v. S., 74 Ga. 191, 70 Gray v. Com., 101 Pa. St. 380, 809, 810, 814 Gray v. Cook, 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 432, 431 Gray v. Parke, 162 Mass. 582, 282 Gray v. P., 26 HI. 347, 735, 768, 770, 781, 836 Gray v. S., 63 Ala. 73, 716 Gray v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 53, 821 Gray v. S., 107 Ind. 177, 889 Graybill v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. . 851, 92 Grayson v. S., 37 Tex. 228, Green v. Com., 13 Ky. L. 897, Green v. Com., 15 Ky. L. 566, Green v. Com., 1 Rob. (Va.) 731, Green v. P., 21 111. 126, Green v. S., 41 Ala. 419, Green v. S., 66 Ala. 40, GreeA v. S., 68 Ala. 539, Green v. S., 51 Ark. 189, Green v. S., 21 Fla. 403, Green v. S., 109 Ga. 536, Green v. S., 110 Ga. 270, Green v. S., 139 Ga. 536, Green v. S., 109 Ind. 175, Green v. S., 154 Ind. 655, 18, 27, Green v. S., 13 Mo. 382, Green v. S., 28 Tex. App. 493, Green y. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. 651, Green v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 31 S. W. 386, Greene, In re, 52 Fed. 104, Greene v. Odell, 60 N. Y. Supp. 846, Greene v. P., 182 111. 278, 413, 414, 418, 419, 421, 854 Greenfield v. P., 74 N. Y. 277, 767, 768 Greenough, In re, 31 Vt. 279, 166 917 923 Greenwald, In re, 77 Fed. 590,' ' 931 Greenwood v. S., 64 Ind. 250, 57, 58 Greer v. S., 50 Ind. 267, 90, 92, 717 Gregory v. S., 80 Ga. 269, 210 Gregory v. S., 26 Ohio St. 510, 248 Gregory v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 577, 11 Grentzlnger v. S., 31 Neb. 460, Gribben, In re, 5 Okla. 379, Grier v. S., 103 Ga. 428, Griffin, Matter of, 98 N. C. 225, Griffln y. S., 39 Ala. 541, Griffin V. S., 76 Ala. 29, Griffln v. S., 90 Ala. 596, Griffin V. S., 26 Ga. 493, Griffin V. S., 14 Ohio St. 55, Griffin V. S., 4 Tex. App. 390, Griffln v. S., 12 Tex. App. 423, Grigg V. P., 31 Mich. 471, Griggs V. S., 58 Ala. 425, Grimes v. S., 63 Ala. 166, 713 29 132 928 567 409 24 193 317, 637 514 845 245 344 571 816, 838 30 113 132 209 702 431 122 927 288 441 631 84 835 616 255 135, 136 57 740 104 238 872 197, Grimes v. S., 105 Ala. 86, Grimm v. U. S., 156 U. S. 604, 603, 604, 619 Grimshaw v. S., 98 Wis. 612, 210 Grise V S., 37 Ark. 456, 222 Grissom v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 146, 113 Griswold v. S., 24 Wis. 144, 816 Grogan v. S., 44 Ala. 9. 679 Grooms v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 319, 264, 186 Gropp V. P., 67 111. 160, 761 Gross V. S., 2 Ind. 329, 768 -Groves v. S., 78 Ga. 205, 699 Grubb T. S., 14 Wis. 470, 241 Grunson v. S., 89 Ind. 533, 1S8 Guagando v. S., 41 Tex. 626, 620 Guedel v. P., 43 111. 228, 670, 674, 843 Guenther V. P., 24 N. Y. 100, 672, 891 Guest V. S., 19 Ark. 405, 96 Guetig V. S., 63 Ind. 278, 863 Gulliher v. P., 82 111. 146, 786, 869 Gundy v. S., 72 Wis. 1, 201, 202 Gunn V. S., 89 Ga. 841, 353 Gunning v. P., 189 III. 165, 894 Gunter v. Dale Co., 44 Ala. 639, 645 Gunter v. S., Ill Ala. 23, 671 Gunther v. P., 139 111. 581, 120/^ 188 Gutehins v. P., 21 111. 641, 254 Guthrie v. S., 16 Neb. 667, 896, 826, 843, 849 Gutierrez, Ex parte, 45 Cal. 429, 659, 878 Gutzesell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 1016, 236 Guy V. S., 90 Md. 29, 382 Guykowskl v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 480, . 773 Guynes v. S., 25 Tex. App. 584, 211, 852 H Haas V. P., 27 III. App. 416, 483 Haase v. S., 53 N. J. L. 34, 335 Hackett v. P., 54, Barb. (N. Y.) 370, 28 Hackett v. S., 89 Ga. 418, 210 Hackney v. S., 8 Ind. 494, 305 Hackney v. Welsh, 107 Ind. 253, 922 Hafner v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 423, 162, 175 Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. (U. S.) . 400, 665 Hagan v. S., 52 Ala. 373, 196 Hagar v. S., 35 Ohio St. 268, 196 Hagen v. S., 10 Ohio St. 459, 9 Hagenow v. P., 188 111. 547, 27, 694 Hagerman y. Tong Lee, 12 Nev. 331, 464 Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721, 907 Haight v. Lucia, 36 Wis. 355, 448 Haines v. Haines, 85 Mich. 188, 484, 444, 464 Haines v. P., 97 III. 167, 431, 463, 464 Haines v. S., 109 Ga. 526, 423 Haines v. Ter., 8 Wyo. 168, 168 Hair v. S., 14 Neb. 503, 731 Hair V. S., 16 Neb. 601, 731, 786, 802 Halrston v. Com., 97 Va. 754, 92 Halrston y. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 846, 565 Halsh V. Payton, 107 III. 371, 803 Hake v. Strubal, 121 111. 821, 912 Halbrook v. S., 34 Ark. 511, 509, 511, 514 Baldeman v. Ter. (Ariz.), 60 Pac. 876, 38 Hale V. Com., 98 Ky. 353, 203 Hale V. S., 122 Ala. 85, 198 Hale 7. S., 55 Ohio St. 210, 428. 429, 437, 438, 441 Hale V. Turner, 29 Vt. 850, 520 Haley v. S., 63 Ala. 89, 654 Haley v. S.; 49 Ark. 147, 108, 158, 216, 899 Hall's Case, 1 Mod. 76, 299 Hall, In re, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 593, 209 Hall V. Com., 3 Ky. 479, 521 Hall V. Com., 89 Va. 171, 26, 27 Hall V. Marshall, 80 Ky. 552, 590 Hall V. P., 39 Mich. 717, 105, 821 Hall y. P., 43 Mich. 417, 212 Hall V. P., 171 111. 540, 214, 215, 220 xxxvm TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages.'] Hall V. S., 100 Ala. 86, 286 Hall V. S., 31 Fla. 176, 327 Hall V. S., 110 Ga. 314, 884 Hall V. S., 132 ma. 317, 30, 629, 829 Hall V. S., 40 Neb. 820, 80 Hall V. S., 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 125, 135 Hall V. S., 3 Lea (Tenn.) 552, 899 Hall V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 219, 378 Hall V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 173, 354 Hall V. U. S., 168 U. S. 632, 606 Halleck v. S., 11 Ohio 400, 401, 709 Halleck t. S., 65 Wis. 147, 243, 245 Halloran v. S., 80 Ind. 586. 680 Halloway v. P., 181 111. 548, 14 Halsted v. S.. 41 N. J. L. 552, 634 Ham's Case, 11 Me. 391, 507 Hamblett v. S., 18 N. H. 384, 114, 115 Hambree v. S., 52 Ga. 242, 417 Hamby v. Samson, 105 Iowa 112, 102 Hamilton, Eiz parte, 51 Ala. 66, 446, 450 Hamilton v. P., 71 111. 499, 874 Hamilton v. P., 113 111. 38, 50, 55, 327 Hamilton t. P., 29 Mich. 195, 244, 778, 847 Hamilton v. P., 46 Mich. 186, 525 Hamilton v. S., 62 Ark. 543, 728 Hamilton v. S., 36 Ind. 280, 105 Hamilton v. S„ 60 Ind. 193, 130 Hamilton v. S., 142 Ind. 276, 1.32 Hamilton v. S., 35 Miss. 219, 100 Hamilton v. S., 46 Neb. 284, 136 Hamilton v. S., 11 Tex. App. 116, 193 208 Hamilton v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 372, ' 87 Hamilton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 32; 202 Hamilton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 926, 820 Hamilton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. W. 93 798 Hamlin v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 579, 18 Hammel, Matter of, 9 K. I. 248, 459 Hamraersley v. Parker, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 25, 450 Hammond v. P., 32 III. 455, 932 Hammond v. S., 39 Neb. 252, 91 Hammond v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 S. W. 204, 293 Hampton v. S., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 69 118 128 Hampton t. S., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 639,' 225 Hanawalt v. S., 64 Wis. 84, 525 Hanby v. S., 36 Tex. 523, 8 Hancock v. S., 89 Md. 724, 477 Hancock v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 465 92 Handl'ey v. S., 96 Ala. 48, 687 Handy v. S., 121 Ala. 13, 779, 898 Handy v. S., 63 Miss. 207, 304, 538, 540 Hanes v. S., 155 Ind. 112, 76, 79 Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 519 Hankins v. P., 106 111. 633, 719, 874 Hankins v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 992, 131 Hanks v. Workman, 69 Iowa 600, 458 Hanks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 54 S. W. 587, 247, 265 Hanna v. P., 86 111. 244, 733, 761 Hanrahan v. P., 95 Hi. 166, 632, 713, 861, 886, 907 Hans V. S., 50 Neb. 150, 381 Hansberg v. P., 120 111. 23, 361 Hanscom v. S,, 93 Wis. 273, 409, 410 Hanson v. S., 43 Ohio St. 376, 214, 216 Harbaugh v. City of Monmouth, 74 111. 371, 566, 808 Harbin t. S., 133 Ind. 699, 241 Hardebeck v. S., 10 Ind. 460, 84» Harden v. S., 109 Ala. 50, 811 Hardigan, In re, 57 Vt. 100, 931 Hardin v. S., 66 Ark. 53, _ 76» Hardin v. S., 107 Ga. 718, 717, 885 Hardin v. S., 25 Tex. App. 74, 175 Hardin v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 406, 79 Harding v. P., 10 Colo. 387, 657, 908 Harding v. P., 160 III. 464, 647, 65(» Hardtke v. S., 67 Wis. 552, 74, 89, 90, 92, 82» Hardy, Ex parte, 68 Ala. 303. 446, 448, 463 Harft V. McDonald, 1 City Ct. (N, Y.) 181, 68ef Haring v. S., 51 N. J. L. 386, 300' Harless v. U. S., 92 Fed. 353, 882 Harlow v. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.) 610, 301 538 Harman v. Harman, 16 111. 85, ' 505 Harman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 1038, 562 Harmes v. S., 26 Tex. App. 190, 299 Harmon v. City of Chicago, 110 111. 400, 646 Harmon v. S., 92 Ga. 455, 355 Harmon v. Ter., 5 Okla. 368, 88 Harmon v. Ter., 9 Okla. 313, 84, 761 Harp V. S., 59 Ark. 113, 674 Harper v. Com., 93 Ky. 290, 572 Harper v. Mareks, L. R. 2 Q. B. 319 228 Harper v. S., 101 Ind. 109, 519, 522 Harper v. S., 71 Miss. 202. 120 Harrell v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 204, 2, 35 Harris, Ex parte, 4 Utah 5, 4.'i8 Harris v. Bridges, 57 Ga. 407, 458 Harris v. P., 128 111. 592, 661, 662, 757, 776, 777 Harris v. P., 130 111. 457, 744, 887, 888, 893, 911 Harris v. P., 138 III. 66, 887, 912 Harris v. P., 148 111. 97, 911, 915 Harris v. P., 44 Mich. 305, 213 Harris v. P., 64 N. Y. 148, 424, 426, 427 Harris v. S., 123 Ala. 69, 48 Harris v. S., 84 Ga. 269, 207 Harris y. S., 109 Ga. 280, 36 Harris v. S., 54 Ind. 2, 55 Harris v. S.. 155 Ind. 265, 745 Harris v. S., 61 Miss. 304, 205 Harris v. S., 13 Tex. App. 309, 810 Harris v. S., 21 Tex. App. 478, 138 Harris v. S. (Tex. App.), 14 S. W. 447, 179 Harris v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 497, 852 Harris v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 441, 20 Harris v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 922, 153 Harris v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 622, 744 Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 539, 560, 566 Harrison v. P., 81 111. App. 93, 522 Harrison v. P., 50 N. Y. 518, 99, 105 Harrison v. P., 59 N. Y. 518, 99 Harrison v. S., 24 Ala. 67, fi88 Harrison v. S., 36 Ala. 248, £56 Harrison v. S., 35 Ark. 458, 437 Harrison v. S., 74 Ga. 801, 194 Harrison v. S., 83 Ga. 129, 615 Harrison v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 287, 132 Harrison v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 863, 418 Harsdorf v. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. 415, 132 Hart, Ex parte, 94 Cal. 254, 45» TABLE OF CASES. XXXIX IReferefiees are to Pages.'] Hart V. Com., 85 Ky. 77, 628 Hart V. Mayor, 9 Wend. (N. T.) 571, 488 Hart V. S., 117 Ala. 183, 547 Hart V. S., 55 Ind. 599, 113 Hart V. S., 57 Ind. 102, 108 Hart T. S., 120 Ind. 83, .^.87 Hart V. S., 38 Tex. 382, T16 Harteau v. Stone Co., 3 T. & C. (N. Y.) 763, 455 Barter v. Johnson, 16 Ind. 271, 520 Hartford v. S., 96 Ind. 461, 332, 333, 335 Hartgraves v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 13 S. W. 331, 381 Hartman v. ATeline, 63 Ind. 344, 918 Hartmann v. Com., 5 Pa. St. 60, 158, 324, 331 Hartung v. P., 28 N. T. 400, 631 Harty v. Malloy, 67 Conn. 339, 526 Harvell T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 622, 569 Harvey v. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 941, 101 Harvey v. S.. 53 Ark. 425. 208 Harvey v. S., 40 Ind. 516, 745 Harvey v. S. (Miss.), 26 So. 931, 92 Harvey v. S., 21 Tex. App. 178, 127 Harvey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 102, 541, 548 Harvick v. S., 49 Ark. 514, 197 Harwell v. S., 22 Tex. App. 251, 127 Harwood v. P., 26 N. T. 190, 305 Haskett v. S.. 51 Ind. 176, 142, 152, 453 Haskins v. Com., 8 Ky. L. 419, 796 Haskins v. P., 16 N. Y. 344, 112, 114 Hatch V. S., 10 Tex. App. 512, 402 Hatchard v. S., 79 Wis. 357, 494, 496 Hatfield v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1461, 638, 731 Hatfield v. S., 76 Ga. 499, 199 Hatfield v. S., 9 Ind. App. 296, 740 Hathcock v. S., 88 Ga. 91, 101, 180, 900 Hatwood V. S., 18 Ind. 492, 711 Hauk V. S., 148 Ind. 238, 498, 814 Haupt V. S., 108 Ga. 53, 266 Hauskins v. P., 82 lii. 193, 518, 519, 529 Haverstlck v. S., 6 Ind. App. 595, 525 Hawes v. Gustin, 84 Mass. 402, 526 Hawes v. S., 88 Ala. 37, 795, 861 Hawes v. S., 46 Neb. 150, 429 Hawes v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 1094, ^ 59 Hawker v. P.-, 75 N. Y. 487, 897 Hawkins v. Lutton, 95 Wis. 492, 300 Hawkins v. P., 106 111. 633, 656 Hawkins v. S., 9 Ala. 137, 743 Hawkins v. S., 13 Ga. 322, 292, 296 Hawkins v. S., 95 Ga. 458, 127 Hawkins v. S., 125 Ind. 570, 450, 451 Hawkins v. S., 126 Ind. 294, 432, 433 Hawkins v. S., 136 Ind. 630, 86, 861 Hawkins v. S. (Neb.), 83 N. W. 198, 747 Hawley v. Bennett, 4 Paige (N. T.) 164, 442 Hawley v. Com., 78 Va. 847, 717 Haworth v. Gill. 30 Ohio St. 627, 523 Haworth v. Montgomery, 91 Tenn. 16, 481 Hawthorn v. P., 109 111. 307, 644, 645 Hawthorn v. S., 56 Md. 530, 249 Hawthorne v. P., 109 111. 312, 660 Hawthorne v. S., 45 Neb. 871, 447 Hayes v. Mitchell, 69 Ala. 452, 685 Hayes v. Mitchell, 80 Ala. 183, 685 Hayes v. P., 25 N. Y. 390, 510, 511, 514 Hayes v. S., 107 Ala. 1, 904 Hayes v. S., 55 Ind. 99, 65» Haygood v. S., 98 Ala. 61, 63, 64 Haymoud, In re, 121 Cal. 385, 397 Haynes T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 923 746 Haynes v. U. S.. 101 Fed. 817, 876, 898 Hays V. Com., 17 Ey. L. 1147, 200 Hays V. McFarlan, 32 Ga. 699, 520 Hays V. S., 107 Ala. 1, 67S Hays V. S., 57 Miss. 783, 82 Hays V. S., 13 Mo. 246, 84» Hays V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 546, 899 Hayward v. P.. 96 111. 502. 789 Hazelrigg v. Bronaugh, 78 Ky. 62, 432 Hazen v. Com., 11 Harris (Pa.) 355 717 Head V. S., 44 Miss. 735, 38 Head v. P., 43 Neb. 30, 75, 7a Heaiey v. P., 163 HI. 383, 30, 43, 817, 862, 863, 864 Heard v. S., 81 Ala. 55, 235, 236, 239' Heard v. S., 59 Miss. 545, 455, 81(K Hearn v. S., 34 Ark. 550, 289^ Hearson t. Grandine, 87 111. 115, 881 Heath v. S., 105 Ind. 342, 370 Hebblethwaite v. Hepworth, 98 111. 126, 510 Hecox V. S., 105 Ga. 625, 104 Hedges v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. 405, 449 Hedley, Ex parte, 31 Cal. 109, 134, 136, 156 Hedrick v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 532, 193 Heed v. S., 25 Wis. .421, 122 Heflin v. S., 88 Ga. 151, 304, 424, 425 Heider v. S., 4 Ohio Dec. 227, 475 Heilman v. Com., 84 Ky. 457, 79 Hein v. Smith, 18 W. Va. 358, 371 Heine v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 145, 316, 324 Heinlen v. Cross, 63 Cal. 44, 433 Heinsen v. Lamb, 117 111. 553, 913 Heisler v. S., 20 Ga. 153, 79S Heldt V. S., 20 Neb. 492, 813 Heifer v. Nelson, 7 Ohio C. C. 263, 519 Helfrich v. Com.. 33 Pa. St 68, 504 Heligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 223 Hellyer v. P., 186 III. 550, 837, 838, 861, 869 Helm V. P., 186 III. 153, 856 Helm V. S., 66 Miss. 537, 676 Hembree v. S.. 52 Ga. 242, 413, 417 Hemingway v. S.. 68 Miss. 371, 143 Hemphill v. S., 71 Miss. 877, 425, 426 Henderson v. Com. (Va.), 34 S. E. 881, 211 Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534, 882 Henderson v. James, 52 Ohio St. 242 8*-)*^ Henderson v. P., 124 111. 616, 61, 63 Henderson v. P., 117 111. 268, 422 425 717 Henderson v. P., 165 III. 611,' 874, 875, 893, 902 Henderson v. S., 70 Ala. 23, 202 Henderson v. S., 105 Ala. 82, 232, 234 Henderson v. S., 95 Ga. 326, 576 Henderson v. S., 22 Tex. 593, 727 Henderson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 707, 50S Hendrick v. Com., 5 Leigh (Va.) 708, 76S Hendricks v. S., 26 Tex. App. 176, 248, 250 Hendrix v. P., 9 111. App. 42, 520 xl TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages."] Hennersdorf v. S., 25 Tex. App. 597, 356 Hennessy v. Nlcol, 105 Cal. 138, 433 Hennessy v. P., 21 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 239, 233 Hennessy v. S., 23 Tex. App. 340, 255 Henry v. Com., 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 3C1. 300 Henry v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 543, 105 Henry v. Ellis, 49 Iowa 20S, 439, 441 Henry v. S., 33 Ala. 389, 753 Henry v. S., 39 Ala. 679, 105 Henry v. S., 64 Ark. 662, 380 Henry v. S., 51 Neb. 149, 3 Hensche v. P., 16 Mich. 46, 740 Hensen v. S., 120 Ala. 316, 624 Henshaw, Ex parte, 73 Cal. 486. 440, 456 Hensley v. S., 52 Ala. 10, 381 Henson v. S., 112 Ala. 41, 615 Henson t. S., 62 Md. 231, 538, 541 Heral v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 409, 60 Herman v. P., 131 III. 594, I 705, 874, 897, 899 Herman v. S., 75 Miss. 340. 8, 36 Hernandez v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 271, 59 Herndon v. Campbell, 86 Tex. 168, 445 Herndon v. S., Ill Ga. 178, 834 Herold v. S., 21 Neb. 50, 268 Heron v. S., 22 Fla. 86. 227 Herring v. Tylee, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 31, 454 Herron v. Com.. 79 Ky. 38, 876 Hertado v. California, 110 T7. S. 516, 653 Hertel v. P., 78 III. App. 109, 361 Herzinger v. S., 70 Md. 278. 304, 538, 541 Hess, In re, 5 Kan. App. 763, 920 Hess V. S., 45 N. J. L. 445, 713 Kess V. S., 5 Ohio 5, 263 Hester v. S., 103 Ala. 85, 186, 790 Hester v. S., 17 Ga. 130, 232, 240 Hester v. S.. 67 Miss. 129, 282 Hester v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 932 "37 Hevre'n v. Reed, 126 Cal. 219, 371 Hewit V. S., 121 Ind. 245, 229 Hewitt V. P., 186 111. 336, 361 Hewitt V. P., 87 111. App. 367, 361 Heyfron, Ex parte, 7 How. (Miss.) 127, 756 Heygood v. S-, 59 Ala. 50, 101 Sibbs, Ex parte, 26 Fed. 421, 89, 247, 918 Hlbler t. S., 43 Tex. 197, 917 Hickam v. P., 137 111. 80. 730, 734, 824 Hickerson v. Benson. 8 Mo. 8, 563 Blrkey, Ex parte, 4 S. & M. (Miss.) 751, 465 Hickey T. S., 53 Ala. 514, 298, 299, 300 Hickey v. S.. 23 Ind. 21. 900 Hickman v. S., 88 Tex. 190, 834 Hickory v. U. S., 160 U. S. 408, 779 Hicks V. Com., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 597, 314 Hicks V. Com., 86 Va. 223, 413, 715 Hicks V. P., 10 Mich. 395, 532, 533 Hicks V. S., 86 Ala. 30. 413 Hicks V. S., 99 Ala. 169, 862 Hicks V. S., 101 Ga. 581, 99 Hicks V. S., 83 I.nd. 483, 526 Hicks V. S.. Ill Ind. 402, 740 Hicks T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 1016, 132 Hicks V. TT. S., 1.50 IT. S. 442, 869 Higby V. P.. 4 Scam. (111.) 166, 663 Higgins V. Com., 94 Ky. 54, 62, 64, 735 Higgins V. P., 98 111. 519, 220, 779, 869, 884 Higgins V. S. (Tex. App.), 19 S. W. 503, 217 Higgins V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 539, 421 Higgs V. S., 113 Ala. 36, 105 High V. S., 26 Tex. App. 545, 810 Highland v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 393, 131, 191 Higler v. P., 44 Mich. 299, 157 Hilands v. Com., Ill Pa. St. 1, 770, 777, 905 Hllbert v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 537, 679 Hild V. S., 67 Ala. 39, 197 Hlldebrand v. P., 56 N. Y. 394, 103, 108 Hlldreth v. P., 32 111. 36, 131 Hlldreth v. S., 19 Tex. App. 195, 503 Hiler V. P., 156 111. 511, 510, 512, 513, 515, 517 HIII V. Com., 12 Ky. L. 914, 208 Hill V. Com., 17 Ky. L. 1135, 255 Hill V. Com., 98 Pa. St. 192, 232 Hill V. Com., 2 Gratt. (Va.) 594, 24, 32 Hill V. Crandall, 52 111. 70, 429 Hill v. Dalton, 72 Ga. 314, 372 Hill V. P., 16 Mich. 351, 776, 883 Hill V. Parsons, 110 111. 107, 870 Hill V. S., 42 Neb. 503, 215 Hill v. S., 17 Wis. 697, 888 Hill V. Wells, 23 Mass. 104, 519 Hilles. In re, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 340, 441 Hilligas V. S., 55 Neb. 586, 123' Hills V. Savings Bank, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 546, 452 Hilt, Matter of, 9 Abb. N. C. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 484, 591 Hiltablddle v. S.. 35 Ohio St. 52, 79 Hilton V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 113, 503, 525 Hinds V. S., 55 Ala. 145, 243 Hiner v. P., 34 111. 304, 898 Ilinkle V. S., 1'27 Ind. 490, 53 Hinshaw v. S., 147 Ind. 334, 6 Hinton T. Dickinson, 19 Ohio St. 583, 519 HIntoh V. S., 68 Ga. 322, 567 Hlntz V. S., 58 Wis. 493, 532 Hipes T. S., 73 Ind. 39, 301 Hirschman v. P., 101 111. 568, 830, 869 HIte V. Com., 88 Va. 882, 210 Hitesman v. S., 48 Ind. 473, 420 Hix V. P., 157 111. 384, 98, 117, 124, 851 Hoagland v. Creed, 81 111. 507, 757 Hoak V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 508, 230 Hobbs V. P., 183 111. 336, 135, 153, 745 Hobbs V. S., 75 Ala. 1, 256 Hobbs V. S., 133 Ind. 404, 788 Hobson V. Doe, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 308, 787 Hobson V. S., 44 Ala. 381, 224 Hodge V. S., 11 Lea (79 Tenn.) 528, 222 223 224 Hodge V. Sawyer, 85 Me. 285, ' 518', 519 Hodges V. S.. 94 Ga. 593, 585 Hodges V. S., 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 113, 335 I-Iodgklns V. S., 36 Neb. 160, 55 Hodgson V. Nickell. 69 Wis. 308, 518 Hoflf V. Fisher, 26 Ohio St. 8, 523 Hoffman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 309, 120 Hogan V. S., 76 Ga. 82, 304, 305, 542 Hoge V. P., 117 III. 44, 116, 121, 615, 861. 862, 863, 865, 867 Hogg V. P., 15 III. App. 288, 368 TABLE OP CASES. xli [References are to Pages.} Hogg V. S., 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 326, 130 Hogue V. Hayes, 53 Iowa 377, 434 Hoke V. P., 122 111. 517, 666, 669 ■Holbrook'T. Dow, 12 Gray (Mass.) 357, , .- gjlj ■ Holbrook v. Ford, 153 111. 633, 432 Holbrook v. Knight, 67 Me. 244, 527 Holbrook v. S., 1C»7 Ala. 154, 106 Holcomb V. P., 79 111. 411, 451, 524, 527, 529 Holeman v. S., 13 Ark. 105, 878 Holland v. S., 39 Fla. 178, 811 Holland v. S., 131 Ind. 568, 495 Holland v. S., 60 Miss. 939, 470 Holland v. S., 14 Tex. App. 182, 503 iHoller V. S., 37 Ind. 57, 36 .Jlolley V. Mix, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) i 350, 687 Holley V. S., 15 Fla. 688, 691 Holley V. S., 21 Tex. App. 156, 132 Holllday v. P., 4 Gilm. (111.) Ill, 717, 737, 903 ,'Ktolliday v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 133, 861 Hoiiingsworth v. S., Ill Ind. 289, 838 Holiis V. S., 27 Fla. 387, 79 'Holloway v. Jobnson, 129 111. 369, 863 Holloway v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 649, 726 Holly V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 301, 36 Hollywood V. P., 3 Keyes (N. T.) , 55, 48 Holman, Ex parte, 28 Iowa 88, 461 Holman t. Borougb, 2 Salk. 658, 529 • Holman v. S., 105 Ind. 513, 430 .Holmes v. P., 5 Gilm. (111.) 478, 726 : Holmes v. S., 100 Ala. ^0, 12 Holmes v. S., 59 Ark. 641, 132 Holmes v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 370, 112 Holsey v. S., 89 Ga. 433, 132 Hoist V. Roe, 39 Ohio St. 340, 650 Holt V. S., 11 Ohio St. 691, 726 Holt T. S., 9 Tex. App. 571, 617, 766 Holt V. Ter., 4 Okla. 76, 17 Holten V. S., 28 Fla. 303, 80 .Holton T. S., 109 Ga. 127, 165 Home Electric, etc., Co. v. Globe, etc., Co., 145 Ind. 174, 465 Homer v. S., 1 Ore. 267, 657 Honeycutt v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 806, 817 Hong Shen, Ex parte, 98 Cal. 681, 669 Honselman v. P., 168 111. 176, 584, 585, 586, 702, 836 Hood y. S., 44 Ala. 86, 408 Hood V. S., 56 Ind. 263, 408, 502, 511 Hooker v. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) 763, 232, 887 Hooker v. S., 4 Ohio 348, 92 Hooper, In re, 52 Wis. 699, 922 Hooper v. S., 106 Ala. 41, 75 Hoover, In re, 30 Fed. 51, 373 Hoover v. S., 59 Ala. 57, 619 Hoover y. S., 48 Neb. 184, 726 Hope V. P., 83 N. Y. 418, 718 Hopkins v. Com., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 464, 250 Hopkins v. Plainfleld, 7 Conn. 286, 522 Hopkins v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 619, 901 Hopkinson v. P., 18 111. 265, 857, 861, 904 Hopper V. S., 54 Ga. 389, 505, 553 Hopps v. P., 31 111. 388, 622, 623, 829 Hopt v. Utah, 104 U. S. 631, 617, 618, 856 Hopt V. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 750 Hopt V. Utah, 120 U. S. 430, 642 Horback v. S., 43 Tex. 242, 833 Horn V. S., 62 Ga. 362, 731 Hornbeck v. S., 35 Ohio St. 277, 85 Hornberger v. S., 47 Neb. 40, 376 Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S. 570, 576, 606 Horner v. U. S., 147 U. S. 449, 604 Hornish v. P., 142 111. 626, 862, 868 Hornsby v. S., 94 Ala. 55, 39 Horton v. Norwalt Tramway Co., 66 Conn. 272, 356 Horton v. S., 53 Ala. 488, 802 Hoskey v. S., 9 Tex. App. 202, 378 Hoskins ' P., 84 111. 88, 742 Hosklns V. S., 27 Ind. 470, 876 Hoskins V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 1003, 112 Houser v. S., 58 Ga. 78, 209, 643 Houser v. S., 18 Ind. 106, 371 Houser v. S., 93 Ind. 228, 524, 525, 526 Housh v. P., 75 111. 491, 132, 404, 469, 662, 682 Houston v. Com., 87 Va. 257, 216, 217, 218 Houston y. P., 63 111. 185, 348, 352 Houston V. S., 13 Ark. 66, 131 Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 445 Hovey v. Elliott, 145 N. Y. 126, 463 Howard, Ex parte, 26 Vt. 205, 876 Howard v. Durand, 36 Ga. 346, 430, 465 Howard v. Gosset, 10 Q. B. (59 E. C. L.) 359, 429 Howard v. Overseer, 1 Band. (Va.) 464, 522 Howard v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 695, 302, 304, 305, 708, 751 Howard v. P., 185 111. 559, 31, 495, 500, 803 Howard v. S., 108 Ala. 571, 846 Howard v. S., 121 Ala. 21, 406 Howard v. S., 109 Ga. 137, , 241 Howard v. S., 87 Ind. 70, 294 Howard v. S., 25 Ohio St. 399, 899 Howard v. U. S., 75 Fed. 986, 605, 930 Howe V. S., 110 Ala. 54, 311 Howe V. S., 9 Mo. 690, 932 Howe V. Wiilard, 40 Vt. 645, 433 Howell V. Com., 5 Gratt. (Va.) 664, 241 Howell V. Morlan, 78 HI. 162, 907 Howell V. P., 178 111. 181, 264, 885 Howell V. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 289, 863 Howes V. Grush, 131 Mass. 207, 273 Hoyt V. P., 140 111. 588, 239, 318, 730, 836, 871 Hronek v. P., 134 111. 139, 645, 784, 896 Hubbard v. S., 107 Ala. 33, 123 Hubbard v. S., 109 Ala. 1, 378 Hubbard v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 391, 295 Huber v. S., 25 Ind. 175, 306 Huber v. S., 126 Ind. 185, 86, 789 Huddleston v. Francis, 124 111. 195, 655 Hudeburgh v. S., 38 Tex. 535, 313 Hudley v. S., 36 Ark. 237, 737 .Hudson V. Parker, 156 U. S. 277, 690 Hudson V. S., 104 Ga. 723, 521 Hudson V. S., 73 Miss. 784, 382 Hudson V. S., 9 Tex. App. 151, 111 Hudson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 36 S. W. 452, 727 Hudspeth v. S., 55 Ark. 323, 885 Huff V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1064, 258 Huff V. S., 106 Ga. 432, 89 Huffman v. Click, 77 N. C. 55, 838 Huffman v. S., 29 Ala. 40, 564 Huffman v. S., 89 Ala. 33, 896 Huffman v. S., 28 Tex. App. 174, 101 Huggins v. P., 135 111. 24^ • 188, 189 xlii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages."] Hugglns V. S., 41 Ala. 393, ^„^ 187 Hughes, In re, 8 N. M. 225, 435, 441 Hughes V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 497, 688 Hughes V. P., 8 Colo. 536, 439, 669 Hughes V. P., 116 111. 339, 525, 696, 746, 776, 909 Hughes V. S., 117 Ala. 25, 625 Hughes v. S., 65 Ind. 39, 896 Hughes V. S., 87 Md. 208, 273, 274 Hughes V. S., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) - 75, 120 Hughes V. S. (Wis.), 85 N. W. 333, 771 Hughes V. Ter., 8 Okla. 28, 116 Hull v. Harris, 45 Conn. 544, 442 Hull V. Hull, 2 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 174, 502 Hull V. S., 79 Ala. 33, 59 Hull V. S., 93 Ind. 128, 527 Hull V. S., 120 Ind. 154, 290 Humpeler v. P., 92 111. 400, 367, 383, 851 Humphrey v. S„ 78 Wis. 569, 524, 525 Humphreys v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 434, 566 Humphries v. Parker, 52 Me. 502, 805 Hunt V. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) 757, 104, 109 Hunt V. Hunt, 94 Ga. 257, 70 Hunt V. Lambertville, 46 N. J. L. 59, 433 Hunt V. P., 53 HI. App. Ill, 47 Hunt V. S., 49 Ga. 255, 750 Hunt V. S., 3 Ind. App. 383, 222, 229 Hunt V. S., 6 Tex. App. 663, 50 Hunt V. S., 28 Tex. App. 149, 910 Hunt V. S., 103 Wis. 559, 210 Hnnter v. Com., 79 Pa. St. 503, 51, 56 Hunter v. Com., 2 S. & B. (Pa.) 298, 302 Hunter v. P., 1 Seam. (HI.) 455, 736 Hunter v. P., 52 111. App. 367, 598 Hunter v. S., 112 Ala. 77, 326 Hunter t. S., 60 Ark. 312, 368 Hunter v. S., 29 Fla. 486, 78 Hunter v. S., 6 Ind. 423, 463 Hunter v. S., Ml Ind. 241, 367, 368 Hunter v. S., 14 Ind. App. 683, 301 Hunter v. S., 74 Miss. 515, 814 Hunter t. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 599, 809 Hunter v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 37 S. W. 323, 108 Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Conn. 174, Huntsman v. S., 12 Tex. App. Hurd V. Hurd, 63 Minn. 443, Hurd V. P., 25 Mich. 405, Hurlburt v. S., 52 Neb. 428, Huron, In re, 58 Kan. 152, Hurst V. S., 86 Ala. 604, ' Hurst V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 196, Hurt V. S., 55 Ala. 214, Hurt V. S., 26 Ind. 106, Hurt V. S., 25 Miss. 378, Hussey v. S., 86 Ala. 34 Hussey v. S., 87 Ala. 121, 830 Huston V. P., 121 111. 500, 787 Hutcherson v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 67, 415 Hutchcrson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 S. W. 375, 178 Hutchins v. S., 28 Ind. 34, 514 Hutchinson V. S., 62 Ala. 3, 310 Hutchison V. Com., 82 Pa. St. 472, 38, 717 Hutton V. Lockridge, 21 W. Va. 254, 462 Button V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 209, 256 432, 446 646, 135, 703 442 22 120, 898 446 673 170, 176 202 120 672, 881, 906. 549 Hyatt V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. B80, 122 Hyde v. Middlesex, 2 Gray (Mass.) . 267, 34f Hyde v. Ter., 8 Okla. 69, 728 Hyden v. S., 40 Ga. 476, 528 Hydock v. S., 59 Neb. 297, 430 ce V. S., 123 Ind. 590, 528 llinois, etc., R. Co. v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 990, 351 llinois, etc., E. Co. v. P., 49 111. App. 540, 34(t mpson V. S. (Tex.), 19 S. W. 677, 311 ngalls V. S., 48 Wis. 647, 121, 618, 875 ngraham y. P., 94 111. 428, 445, 914 ngram T. 8., 62 Miss. 142, 14, 624, 626 ngwaldson v. Skrivseth, 7 N. D. 388 520 nman v. S., 65 Ark. 508, 81 nsurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. (TF. S.) 397, 817 owa Barb Steel Wire Co. v. South- ern Barbed Wire Co., 30 Fed. 615, 462 reland. Ex parte, 38 Tex. 344, 459 rvlne v. S., 18 Tex. App. 51, 312 rwin. Ex parte, 88 Cal. 169, 891 saacs V. P., 118 111. 538, 188, 819, 885, 886 saacs V. 8., 48 Miss. 234, 316, 331 shell V. 8., 93 Ga. 194, g» sham T. S., 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 113, 898 sham V. -S. (Tex. Cr.), 41 S. W. 622, 126 Ires T. Hulce, 17 111. App. 30, 908 Jackson, In re, 3 McArthur 24, 891, 892 Jackson v. Archibald, 12 Ohio C. C. 155, 921 Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Peters (U. S.) 480, 90T Jackson v. Com., 100 Ky. 239, 813 Jackson v. Com., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 656, Jackson v. Com., 23 Gratt. 919, Jackson v. Com., 98 Va. 845, Jackson v. Com. (Va.), 36 S. B. 487, 625 Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175, 746 Jackson v. Mann, 2 Caines (N. T.) 92, 451 Jackson v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 232, 515, 516 Jackson v. P., 18 111. 269, 2, 10, 165, 182, 710, 867, 878 Jackson v. P., 40 111. 405, 845 Jackson v. P., 126 111. 139, 157, 162, 169, 177, 825. 840 Jackson v. Smith, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 117, 450, 451, 453 Jackson v. S., 69 Ala. 249, 115, 220 Jackson v. S., 91 Ala. 55, 716, 742 Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 76, 678, 90S Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 167, 199, 695 Jackson v. S., 117 Ala. 155, 572 Jackson v. S., 76 Ga. 551, 152, 153, 695 Jackson v. S., 91 Ga. 271, 87? Jackson v. S., 66 Miss. 89, 637 (Va.) 771, 2T 796 746 TABLE OF CASES. xliii [References are to Pages."] Jackson V. S., 49 N. J. L. 252, 887 Jackson Y. S., 39 Ohio St. 38, 20 Jackson v. S., 43 Tex. 421, 389 Jackson V. S. (Tex.), 25 S. W. 773, 566 Jackson v. S., 15 Tex. App. 579, 419 Jackson v. S., 28 Tex. App. 143, 206 Jackson v. S., 28 Tex. App. 370, 206, 207 Jackson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 38, 20 Jackson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 90, 114 Jackson v. S.i 37 Tex. Cr. 612, 535 Jackson v. S., 55 Wis. 589, 199, 212 Jackson y. S., 81 Wis. 127, 803, 831 Jackson v. S., 91 Wis. 253, 85 Jackson v. U. S., 102 Fed. 473, 876 Jacob! V. S., 59 Ala. 71, 301, 365, 565 Jacobs' Case, 98 N. Y. 98, 646 Jacobs, In re, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 428, 460 Jacobs V. Com.. 2 Leigh (Va.) 709, 713 Jacobs T. S., 61 Ala. 448, 411, 415, 417, 421 Jacobs V. S., 81 Neb. 33, 176 Jacobs Phar. Co. v. Atlanta, 89 Fed. 244 372 Jacoby v. Goetter, 74 Ala. 427, 444 Jacques v. P., 66 111. 84, 92 Jambor v. S., 75 Wis. 664, 679 James T. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1045, 385 James v. Dexter, 112 111. 491, 656 James v. Dexter, 113 111, 656, 912 James T. S., 53 Ala. 380, 215 James t. S., 55 Miss. 57, 905 James v. S., 77 Miss. 370, 210 James v. Ward, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 271, 892 Jamison v. P., 145 111. 377, 727, 734, 793 Jamison t. 8., 37 Ark. 445, 158, 169, 174, 461 Jamison v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 1156, 649 Janes v. Reynolds, 2 Tex. 251, 650 Janvrln v. Scammon, 29 N. H. 280, 440 Janzen v. P., 159 111. 441, 89 Jarmone v. S. (N. J. L.), 45 Atl. 1032, 300 Jarrell v. S.. 58 Ind. 293, 808 Javins v. U. S., 11 App. D. C. 345, 275 Jay V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 335, 59 Jefferds v. P., 5 Park Cr. (N. Y.) 522, 814 Jefferson v. S., 100 Ala. 59, 100 Jefferson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 148, 568 Jefferson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 1090, 424 Jefferson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 88 419 Jeffries v. S., 61 Ark. 308, 565 Jellico Coal Mining Co.. v. Com., 96 Ky. 373, 619 Jenkins v. S., 97 Ala. 66, 173 Jenkins v. S., 31 Fla. 196, 798 Jenkins v. S., 35 Fla. 737, 327 Jenkins v. S., 53 Ga. 33, 235, 242 Jenkins v. S., 93 Ga. 1, 618 Jenkins v. S., 59 Neb. 68, 433 Jenkins v. S. (Neb.), 82 N. W. 622, 441 Jenkins v. S., 83 Tenn. 674, 66 Jenkins v. S., 62 Wis. 49, 106, 187 Jenks V. S., 63 Ark. 312, 469 Jenks y. S.; 39 Ind. 1, 726 Jenness y. S., 103 Wis. 553, 287 Jennings y. Com., 17 Pick. (Mass.) 80, 657 Jennings y. P., 189 111. 324, 909 Jentzsch, Ex parte, 112 Cal. 468, 355, 646 Jerdee y. S., 36 Wis. 170, 519 Jernee y. Jernee, 54 N. J. Eq. 657, 456, 459 Jesse y. S., 20 Ga. 156, 416 Jesse V. S., 28 Miss. 109, 70S Jett y. Com., 18 Gratt. (Va.) 933, 267 Jewett y. Dringer, 27 N. J. Eq. 271, 453 Jhons y. P., 25 Mich. 499, 234 John y. S., 2 Ala. 290, 737 John y. S., 6 Wyo. 203, 70 Johns y. Dayis, 2 Eob. (Va.) 729, 462 Johns y. S., 19 Ind. 421, 640 Johnson y. City of Chattanooga, 97 Tenn. 247, 354 Johnson y. Com., 5 Bush (Ky.) 431, 136 Johnson v. Com., 81 Ky. 325, 809 Johnson y. Com., 87 Ky. 189, 207 Johnson y. Com., 90 Ky. 53, 396, 860 Johnson y. Com., 5 Ky. L. 877, 735 Johnson v. Com., 12 Ky. L. 873, 207 Johnson y. Com., 29 Gratt. (Va.) 796, 210 Johnson v. Court, 63 Cal. 578, 445 Johnson v. McGregor, 157 111. 352, 783 Johnson v. P., 22 111. 317, 319, 322, 706, 742, 743, 752 Johnson y. P., 83 111. 437, 362, 365, 375, 645, 891 Johnson y. P., 94 111. 510, 408, 410, 420 Johnson y. P., 113 111. 99, 98, 106, 107, 108, 135, 139, 154, 703 Johnson y. P., 123 111. 624, 142, 401 Johnson y. P., 140 111. 352, 524, 787 Johnson y. P., 173 111. 133, 878 Johnson v. P., 42 111. App. 594, 357 Johnson y. P., 55 N. Y. 512, 875 Johnson y. S., 47 Ala. 9, 27, 32, 773, 783 Johnson y. S., 59 Ala. 37, 811, 812, 815 Johnson y. S., 73 Ala. 483, 201 Johnson y. S., 92 Ala. 84, 201 Johnson y. S., 94 Ala. 35, 25 Johnson y. S., 102 Ala. 1, 26 Johnson y. S., 29 Ark. 31, 42, 672 Johnson y. S., 36 Arte 242, 167 Johnson y. S., 60 Ark. 308, 516- Johnson y. S., 14 Ga. 55, 716, 808 Johnson y. S., 30 Ga. 426, 685 Johnson y. S., 48 Ga. 116, 232 Johnson y. S., 58 Ga. 491, 729 Johnson y. S., 72 Ga. 679, 860 Johnson y. S., 76 Ga. 790, 419, 421 Johnson y. S., 77 Ga. 68, 123 Johnson y. S., 83 Ga. 553, 364, 810 Johnson v. S., 86 Ga. 90, 808 Johnson y. S., 88 Ga. 208, 818 Johnson y. S., 89 Ga. 107, 243, 245 Johnson y. S., 75 Ind. 556, 173, 174, 177 Johnson y. S., 148 Ind. 522, 120, 124, 132 Johnson y. S., 47 Miss. 671, 112, 120' Johnson v. S., 63 Miss. 228, 368 Johnson y. S., 34 Neb. 257, 705 Johnson y. S., 55 Neb. 781, 527 Johnson v. S., 26 N. J. L. 313, 324 Johnson y. S., 17 Ohio 593, 85 Johnson y. S., 42 Ohio St. 207, 928 Johnson y. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 279, 135, 140 Johnson y. S., 17 Tex. 315, 47 Johnson v. S., 1 Tex. App. 333, 786 Johnson y. S., 3 Tex. App. 590, 316, 321 Johnson y. S., 7 Tex. App. 210. 69 Johnson y. S., 12 Tex. App. 385, 123- Johnson y. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 456, 731 Johnson y. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 140. 214, 215 Johnson v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 271, 247 xliv .TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.1 Johnson v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 394, 108, 132 Johnson v. S., 39 Ter. 393, 119 Johnson v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 605, 247 Johnson t. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 504, 132 Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. W. 69, 113 Johnson t. St. Paul, etc., B. Co., 43 Minn. 223, 647 Johnson v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 567, 432 Johnson v. Ter., 5 Olsla. 695, 205 Johnson v. tT. S., 157 U. S. 320, 39, 824 Johnson v. U. S., 85 Fed. 187, 722 Johnston v. Com.. 85 Pa. St. 54, 104 Johnston v. P., 31 111. 473, 903 Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97, 922 Johnston v. S., 7 Mo. 183, 874 Jolly V. S., 94 Ala. 19, 317 Jones, Ex parte, 96 Fed. 200, 926 Jones, In re, 35 Neb. 499, 890 Jones, In re, 6 Civ. Proc. (N. T.) 250, 456 Jones V. Com., 75 Pa. St. 403, 2, 8, 618 Jones V. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) 848, 876 Jones T. Hungerford, 4 GUI & J. (Md.) 402, 233 Jones V. Jones, 45 Md. 148, 525 Jones V. Leonard, 50 Iowa 106, 918, 921 Jones T. Osgood, 2 Seld. (N. Y.) 233, 747 Jones V. P., 23 Colo. 276, 10 Jones V. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 477, 713 Jones T. P., 12 111. 259, 124 Jones V. P., 14 111. 197, 372 Jones v. P., 53 111. 366. 520, 527 Jones V. P., 166 111. 269, 637, 791, 817 Jones V. P., 84 111. App. 453, 482 Jones V. S., 13 Ala. 157, 620 Jones V. S., 26 Ala. 155, 562 Jones V. S., 67 Ala. 84, 512 Jones V. S., 97 Ala. 77, 677 Jones V. S., 107 Ala. 93, 822 Jones v. S., 52 Ark. 346, 859 Jones V. S., 55 Ark. 186, 310 Jones V. S., 58 Ark. 390, 843 Jones V. S., 18 Pla. 889, 203 Jones V. S., 22 Fla. 532, 173, 176 Jones V. S., 48 Ga. 164, 787 Jones V. S., 55 Ga. 625, 676, 679 Jones V. S., 63 Ga. 141, 212 Jones V. S., 64 Ga. 697, 912 Jones V. S., 90 Ga. 616, 543 Jones V. S., 100 Ga. 579, 368 Jones V. S., 106 Ga. 365, 75 Jones T. S., 11 Ind. 360, 262 Jones v. S., 50 Ind. 473, 157, 172 Jones V. S., 64 Ind. 473, 835 Jones T. S., 71 Ind. 66, 32 Jones V. S., 89 Ind. 82, 883 Jones V. S., 70 Md. 326, 494, 497 Jones T. S., 26 Miss. 247, 121 Jones v. S., 30 Miss. 653, 123 Jones V. S., 51 Miss. 718, 888 Jones T. S., 14 Mo. 409, 686 Jones V. S., 49 Neb. 609, 484 Jones V. S., 51 Ohio St. 331, 807 Jones V. S., 84 Tenn. 466, 64 Jones T. S., 13 Tex. 168, 42, 672, 900 Jones V. S., 9 Tex. App. 178, 224 Jones T. S., 25 Tex. App. 621, 209, 851 Jones T. S., 26 Tex. App. 1, 688 Jones T. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 364, 336 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 395, 203 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 992, 23 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 162, 130 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 596, 314 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 46 S. W. 813, 80 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 387, 127, 132 Jones V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 491, 198 Jordan v. Circuit Court, 69 Iowa 177, 447, 448, 455 Jordan v. Com., 25 Gratt. (Va.) 943. 219 Jordan v. S., 82 Ala. 1, 33 Jordan v. S., 22 Ga. 558, 672 Jordan v. S., 142 Ind. 422, 237, 238 Jordan v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 222, 377, 380 Joseph V. Com., 8 Ky. L. 53, 727 Joslln V. S., 75 Miss. 838, 26 Joslyn V. S., 128 Ind. leo, 118 Joy V. Metcalf, 161 Mass. 514, 386 Joy V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 935, 860 Joyce V. S., 53 Ga. 50, 78 Judge V. Kerr, 17 Ala. 328, 521 Judson V. Reardon, 16 Minn. 431, 685 Jules V. S., 85 Md. 305, 169 Jumpertz v. P., 21 111. 408, 775, 826, 839 Jupltz V. P., 34 111. 522, 829, 831 Justice V. S., 99 Ala. 181, 33 Justices V. P., 90 N. T. 12, 103 Kadlowsliy T. Kadlowsky, 63 lU. App. 292, 442, 443 Kaehler y. Dobberpuhl, 56 Wis. 497, 462 Kaehler v. Halpln^ 59 Wis. 40, 433 462 Kahn v. S., 58 Ind. 168, ' 255 Kaine, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. (C. C) 1 932 Kaiser v. S., 35 Neb. 704, 133 Kalthoff V. Hendrie, 48 Mich. 306, 650 Kameta. Ex parte, 36 Ore. 251, 574 Kammann v. P., 124 111. 482, 380 Kanavan's Case, 1 Me. 226, 579 Kane v. Com., 89 Pa. St. 522, 364 Kane v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 541, 828 Kane v. Haywood, 66 N. C. 1, 441, 453 Kannon v. S., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 390, 671 Kastner v. S., 58 Neb. 767, 21, 865 Katlin V. Com., 84 Ky. 354, 17 Kaufman v. Dostal, 73 Iowa 691, 373 Kealin v. Com., 84 Ky. 354, 822 Kearby, Ex parte, 35 Tex. Cr. 531, 459, 460, 461 Kearley v. Taylor, 17 Cox C. C. 328, 475 Kearney, Ex parte, 7 Wheat. (D. S.) 38, 446, 456 Kearney v. S., 101 Ga. 803, 30 Keating v. P., 160 111. 485, 114, 120, 130, 642, 730, 793, 823, 852 Keaton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 1125, 766 Kee v. S., 28 Ark. 155, 5, 829, 900 Keech v. S., 15 Fla. 591, 836 Keedy v. P., 84 111. 569, 672, 745, 891 Keefe v. S., 19 Ark. 190, 47 Keely v. S., 14 Ind. 36, 99, 102 Keena v. S., 63 Conn. 329, 235 Keenan v. Com., 44 Pa. St. 55, 618 Keenan v. P., 104 111. 386, 643, 882, 884 Keener v. S., 18 Ga. 221, 833 Keener v. S., 97 Ga. 388. 622, 763 Keith V. Ter., 8 Okla. 307, 120 Kellenbeck v. S., 10 Md. 431, 239 TABLE OF CASES. xlv IReferences are to Pages."} Keller v. S., 102 Ga. 506, 545, 548, 550, 551 Keller v. S., 51 Ind. Ill, 157, 165, 174, 701 Keller v. S., 12 Md. 322, 631 Kelley v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 412, 114 Kellog, Ex parte, 64 Cal. 843, 432, 434, 441 Kellogg V. S., 26 Ohio St. 15, 108, 158 Kelly V. P., 17 Colo. 133, 796 Kelly V. P., 29 111. 290, 518 Kelly -v. P., 39 111. 158, 696 Kelly V. P., 115 111. 583, 661, 667, 680, 874, 875 Kelly V. P., 132 111. 371, 51, 696, 740 Kelly V. P., 55 N. Y. 565, 743, 822 Kelly V. S., 72 Ala. 244, 202 Kelly V. S., 33 Tex. App. 31, > 544 Kelly V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 588, 209 Kemp T. Com., 80 Va. 443, 637 Kemp V. S., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 320, 619 Kemp v. S., 25 Tex. App. 589, 57 Kendall v. S., 65 Ala. 492, 899 Kendrlek v. Com., 78 Va. 490, 440 Kendriek v. S., 100 Ga. 360, 501, 502 Keniston v. Howe, 16 Me. 38, 518, 525 Kennedy, Ex parte (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 648, 818 Kennedy v. Howard, 74 Ind. 87, 891 Kennedy v. P., 40 III. 497, 864 Kennedy v. P., 44 111. 285, 88, 862, 865 Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 655, 51, 56, 652, 876, 879, 899 Kennedy v. P., 39 N. Y. 253, 31 Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. 155, 903 Kennedy v. S., 85 Ala. 327, 23 Kennedy v. S., 31 Fla. 428, 116, 117 Kennedy v. S., 81 Ind. 379, 198 Kennedy v. S., 107 Ind. 144, 687, 865 Kennedy v. S., 34 Ohio St. 310, 181 Kennedy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 590, 348 Kennon v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 376, 92 Kent V. P., 8 Colo. 563, 14. 21, 38, 630, 632 Kent V. S., 64 Ark. 247, 132 Kent V. S., 84 Ga. 438, 193 Kent V. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 163, 657 Kent V. S., 42 Ohio St. 426, 790 Kenyon v. P., 26 N. Y. 203, 543, 545, 549, 550 Kepley v. P., 123 111. 367, 658, 659 Ker V. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 665, 918 Ker v. P., 110 111. 627, 138, 148, 153, 665, 688, 918 Kerese v. S., 10 Ga. 95, 927 Kerfoot v. P.. 51 111. App. 410, 432 Kernin v. Hill, 37 111. 209, 839 Kernodle v. Cason, 25 Ind. 362, 456, 459 Kerr v. P., 42 111. 308, 421 Kerrains v. P., 60 N. Y. 228, 635 Ketchingham v. S., 6 Wis. 426, 504 Key T. S., 12 Tex. App. 506, 50, 57 Key V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 77, 378 Kibs V. P., 81 111. 600, 106, 107, 110, 128, 134, 135, 148 154, 158, 703 Kidd V. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 373 Kidd V. S., 101 Ga. 528, 211 Kidwell V. S., 63 Ind. 384, 531, 789 Kiefer v. S., 87 Md. 562, 377 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 TT. S. 168 429 Kiley V. S., 120 Ind. 65, 375 Kllgore V. S., 74 Ala. 1, 898 Kilgore v. S., 124 Ala. 24, 3, 625 Killet V. S., 32 Ga. 292, 311 Killman T. S., 2 Tex. App. 222, 300 Kilpatrick v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 10, 534 Kilrow V. Com., 89 Pa. St. 480, 189 Kimball v. P., 20 111. 350, 372 Kimble t. S., 12 Tex. App. 420, 217 Klmbrough v. S., 28 Tex. App. 367, 129 Kimmel v. P., 92 III. 460, 417, 418 Kinard v. S., 57 Miss. 132, 501 Kincald v. P., 139 111. 216. 196, 200, 201, 841 King, Ex parte, 86 Ala. 620, 690 King, In re, 9 N. D. 149, 585 King V. Barnes, 113 N. Y. 476, 437 King V. Barnes, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 550, 437 King V. Carpenter, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 617, 443 King V. Groombridge, 7 C. & P. 582, 79 King V. North, 6 Dowl. & E. 143, 707 King V. P., 83 N. Y. 587, 299, 300, 538 King V. S., 40 Ala. 314, 813 King V. S., 89 Ala. 43, 404 King V. S., 90 Ala. 612, 13 King V. S., 100 Ala. 85, 833 King V. S., 120 Ala. 329, 81 King V. S., 17 Fla. 183, 304, 305 King V. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 206. 471 King V. S., 54 Ga. 184, 130, 851 King V. S., 99 Ga. 686, 205 King V. S., 103 Ga. 263, 418, 421 King V. S., 74 Miss. 576. 621 King V. S., 58 Miss. 737, 361 King V. S., 66 Miss. 502, 367 King V. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 766, 624 King V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 472, 497 King V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 840, 253, 909 King V. Stevens, 5 East 244, 715 King V. Vaughan, 2 Dougl. 516. 453 Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223, 922 Kinkead v. S., 45 Ark. 536, 310 Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wis. 75, 432 Kinney v. P., 108 111. 527, - 43, 624, 625 Kinney v. S., 38 Ala. 226, 291 Kinningham v. S., 119 Ind. 332, 234, 241 Kinzel. In re, 59 N. Y. Supp. 682, 367 Klphart v. S., 42 Ind. 273, 342, 343 Kirbie v. S., 5 Tex. App. 60. 686 Kirby v. P., 123 111. 439, 828, 839, 909 Kirby v. S., 57 N. J. L. 320, 391 Kirby v. S., 23 Tex. App. 13, 328 Kirby v. U. S., 174 U. S. 47, 186 Kirk V. Com., 12 Ky. L. 707, 132 Kirk V. Com., 9 Leigh (Va.) 627, 261 Kirk V. Milwaukee, etc., Mfg. Co., 26 • Fed. 501, 444 Kirk V. S., 65 Ga. 159, 511 Kirk V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 37 S. W. 440, 784 Kirk V. Ter. (Okla.), 60 Pac. 797, 814 Kirkham y. P., 170 111. 13, 19, 666, 795 Kirland v. S., 43 Ind. 146, 853, 863 Kistler v. S., 54 Ind. 400, 829, 877 Kistler V. S., 64 Ind. 371, 952 Kit V. S., 11 Humph. (Teun.) 167, 218 219 Kitchens v. S., 80 Ga. 810, ' 95 Kitcken v. ' S., 29 Tex. App. 45, 426 Kitral v. S., 9 Fla. 9, 695 Kitter v. P., 25 III. 27, 774 Klehn v. Ter., 1 Wash. St. 584, 829 Klein v. P., 113 III. 596, 219, 615, 884, 885, 886 Kiepfer v. S., 121 Ind. 491, 750 xlvi TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.'] Klepper, Ex parte, 26 111. 532, 931 Klietorth v. S., 88 Wis. 163, 192 Klink V. P., 16 Colo. 467, 886 Klugman, In re, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 484, 461 Klum T. S., 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 377, 297 Knetel v. P., 187 III. 217, 907, 908 Kneffler v. Com., 94 Ky. 360, 299, 300 Knickerbocker v. P., 43 N. Y. 177, 121, 207 Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Goald, 80 111. 395, 885 Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Tolman, 80 III. 107, 734 Knight V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 385 341 Knights V. S., 58 Neb. 225, 242 Knott V. P., 83 111. 532, 431, 434, 444 Knowles, Ex parte, 16 Ky. L. 263, 918 Knowles v. Scribner, 57 Me. 495, 522 Koch v. S., 115 Ala. 09, 248 Koch V. S., 32 Ohio St. 353, 384 Koch V. S., 53 Ohio St. 433, 669 Kolbe V. P., 85 111. 336, 519 Kollenberger v. P., 9 Colo. 233, 708 Kollock V. S., 88 Wis. 663, 845, 872 Kolshorn v. S., 97 Ga. 343, 563, 568 Koon V. Mallett, 68 Iowa 205, 527 Koop T. P., 47 111. 330, 354, 359 Kopke V. P., 43 Mich. 41, 512, 513 Kossakowskl v. P., 177 111. 566, 119, 150, 153, 155 Koster t. P., 8 Mich. 431, 201 Kota V. P.. 136 111. 658, 2, 795, 796 Kotter V. P., 150 111. 44i, 185, 252, 257, 705 Krambiel v. Com., 8 Ky. L. 605, 64 Kramer v. Com., 87 Pa. St. 299, 826 Krebs t. S., 8 Tex. App. 1, 25 Kremllng v. Lallman, 16 Neb. 280, 524, 528 Kribs V. P., 82 III. 426, 145 Kring v. Missouri, 107 V. S. 221, 653, 878 KroTer v. P., 78 111. 298, 354 Kugadt T. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 681, 810 Kunkle v. S., 32 Ind. 220, 53 Kurtz V. S., 145 Ind. 119, 766 Labbalte v. S., 6 Tex. App. 483, 256 Lacey v. S., 22 Tex. App. 657, 100 Laclede Bank v. Keeler, 109 111. 385, 800, 830 Laco V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 176, 92 Lacy V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 78, 808 Lacy V. S., 15 Wis. 15, 234 Ladd V. S., 92 Ala. 58, 308, 309 Ladd V. S., 17 Pla. 219, 168 Ladwig V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 585, 860 La Fontaine t. Southern, etc., Assn., 83 N. C. 132, 437 Laird v. S., 61 Md. 309, 251 Lakey v. S., 14 Tex. App. 164, 282 Lamar v. S., 30 Tex. App. 693, 303 Lamater v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 249, 199 La Matt v. S., 128 Ind. 123, 523 Lamb v. P., 96 111. 82, 40, 317, 318, 327, 328, 637 Lamb v. S., 66 Md. 287, 494, 497, 824 Lamb v. S., 40 Neb. 312, 99, 104 Lambert v. P., 34 111. App. 637, 344 Lambert v. P., 76 N. Y. 220, 413, 414 Lambert v. P., 7 Cow. (N. Y. ) 166, 319 Lambeth v. S., 23 Miss. 322, 24, 33 Lambright v. S., 34 Fla. 565, 766, 767, 810, 814 Lamden v. S., 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 83, 415 Lamkin v. P., 94 111. 504, , 711, 874 Lampher v. Dewell, 56 Iowa 153, 457 Lamphere's Case, 61 Mich. 105, 891 Lampkin v. S., 105 Ala. 1, 250 Lampsett v. Whitney, 3 Scam. (III.) 170, 908 Lamson v. Boyden, 160 111. 620, 794, 795 Lancaster v. S., 90 Md. 211, 777 Lancaster v. S., 91 Tenn. 267, 846 Lancaster v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 575, 618 Lander v. P., 104 111. 256, 818 Landers v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 671, 245 Landringham t. P., 49 Ind. 186, 323, 702, 706 Lane v. Com., 59 Pa. St. 371. 10 Lane v. P., 5 Gilm. (111.) 308, 104 Lane v. S., 151 Ind. 511, 18 Lane v. S., 39 Ohio St. 312, 596 Lane v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 S. W. 202, 731 Lane v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 693, 132 849 Laney v. S., 105 Ala. 105, ' 555 Lang V. S., 97 Ala. 41, 139, 151 Langdale v. P., 100 III. 268, 255 Langdon, Ex parte, 25 Vt. 680, 459, 460, 464 Langdon v. P., 133 111. 392, 247, 264, 622, 623, 683, 811 884, 885 Langdon v. Wayne Cir. Judges, 76 Mich. 358, 436 Lange, Ex parte, 18 Wall. (TJ. S.) 163, 665, 676, 890, 907, 926 Langford v. P., 134 HI. 449, 209, 705, 897 Langford v. S., 45 Ala. 26, 175 Langford v. S., 33 Fla. 233, 263 Langford v. S., 17 Tex. App. 445, 207 Langtry v. S., 30 Ala. 536, 514 Lanier v. S., 76 Ga. 304, 202 Laukster v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 s: W. 65, 4 Lansing v. Easton, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 364, * 442 La Plant v. P., 60 111. App. 340, 519, 527 Larison v. S., 49 N. J. L. 256, 559 Lamed v. Com., 12 Mete. (Mass.) 240, 201 Larned v. Tiernan, 110 111. 177, 645 Laroe v. S., 30 Tex. App. 374, 348, 350 La Rosae v. S., 132 Ind. 219, 552 La Rue v. S.. 64 Ark. 144, 18, 626 Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537, 919 Lascelles v. S., 90 Ga. 347, 247, 919 Lasher v. P., 183 111. 232, 646, 647 Laskey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 18 S. W. 465, 341 Lassiter v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 540, 247 Lathrope v. S., 51 Ind. 192, 364 Latimer, Ex parte, 47 Cal. 131, 457 Latimer v. S., 55 Neb. 609, 219 Laughlin v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 640, ^ , 809, 810 La Velle v. S., 136 Ind. 233, 241 Lavender v. S., 85 Ga. 539, 413, 416 Lavin y. P., 69 111. 304, 385, 767 Law V. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 746, 912 Lawhead v. S., 46 Neb. 607, 782, 872 Lawler, Ex parte, 28 Ind. 241, 461 Lawlor v. P., 74 111. 228. 866 Lawrence, Ex parte, 116 Cal. 298, 429 Lawrence v. Com., 30 Gratt. (Va.) 845, 63 TABLE OF CASKS. xlvii [References are to Pages.'] Lawrence v. Harrington, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 195, 437 Iiswrence v. S., 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 228, 101 Lawson V. S., 100 Ala. 7, 225, 283 Lawton v. Ter^ 9 Okla. 456, 338 Layne v. S., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 201, 290, 295 Lea T. S., 64 Miss. 278, 418 Leach v. P., 53 III. 311, 448, 768, 772, 864 Leache v. S., 22 Tex. App. 279, 796 League v. S., 36 Md. 257, 777 Leathers v. S., 26 Miss. 73, 693 Leatherwood v. S., 6 Tex. App. 244, 313 Le Baron v. Crombie, 14 Mass. 234, 787 Le Bur, Ex parte, 49 Cal. 159, 925 Leeroy v. S., 89 Ga. 335, 341 Ledbetter v. S., 23 Tex. App. 247, 688 Ledbetter v. U. S., 170 U. S. 606, 610 Ledgerwood v. S., 134 111. 81, 241, 678, 889 Lee V. Com., 8 Ky. L. 53, 135 Lee T. S., 75 Ala. 29, 877 Lee V. S., 118 Ala. 672, 250 Lee T. S., 56 Ga. 477, 197, 203 Lee V. S., 64 Ga. 203, 112 Lee V. S., 76 Ga. 498, 809 Lee T. S., 51 Miss. 566, 909 Lee T. S., 32 Ohio St. 113, 836, S90 Lee V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 519, 59 Leeper v. S., 29 Tex. App. 154, 395 Lee Tong, In re, 18 Fed. 253, 560 Lefever v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 383 338 341 LeJfor'ge v. S., 129 Ind. 551, 507,' 534 Lefler v. S., 153 Ind. 82, 167 Lega V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 38, 209 Legg V. Drake, 1 Ohio St. 287, 750 Leggatt V. Prideaux, 16 Mont. 205, 399 Lehmaier v. Griswold, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 11, 434 Leiber v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 11, 25, 28, 861 Leigh V. P., 113 111. 372, 34, 642, 862, 865 Lcighton v. Walker, 9 N. SH. 59, 659 Leisy v. Hardin, 135 V. S. 100, 374 Lemons v. S., 97 Tenn. 560, 33 Lemons v. S., 4 W. Va. 755, 662, 717, 830 Lenahen v. Desmond, 150 Mass. 292, 522 Lennard y. S., 104 Ga. 546, 699 Lenox v. Fuller, 39 Mich. 268, 830 Lensing t. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 572, 346 Leonard v. Bolton, 148 Mass. 66, 526 Leonard v. Com., 112 Pa. St. 607, 588 Leonard v. S., 96 Ala. 108, 240 Leonard t. S., 115 Ala. 80, 113, 126 Leonard T. S., 7 Tex. App. 419, 135, 145, 147, 149 Leonard v. S., 27 Tex. App. 186, 59 Leopold V. P., 140 111. 552, 433, 464 Lequat v. P., 11 111. 331, 710 Leseallett v. Com., 89 Va. 878, 573 Leslie v. S., 35 Fla. 171. 198 lieslie V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 659, 631 Lesser v. P., 73 N. T. 78, 161 Lester v. P., 150 111. 416, 429, 434, 445, 463, 464, 833, 915 Lester v. S., 37 Fla. 382, 27, 33, 37 Lettz V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 371, 56S Ijevan v. Third District Court (Ida- ho), 43 Pac. 574, 462 Levar v. S^ 103 Ga. 42, 399 Levells v. S., 32 Ark. 585, 902 Ley! v. S., 14 Neb. 1,. 186 Leyy v. P., 80 N. Y. 327, 237, 63* Levy V. Stanion, 53 N. Y. Supp. 472, 432 Levy V. Stanion, 59 N. Y. Supp. 306, 432 Levy V. S., 79 Ala. 259, 99, 103 Lewellen v. S., 18 Tex. 538, 570 Lewis, Ex parte, 79 Cat. 95, 922 Lewis, In re (Mich.), 82 N. W. 816, 929 Lewis V. Garrett, 5 How. (Miss.) 434, 446 Lewis V. Lewis, 80 Ga. 706, 459 Lewis V. Miller, 21 Miss. 110, 451 Lewis V. P., 44 111. 454, 774 Lewis V. P., 82 111. 104, 522 Lewis V. P., 37 Mich. 518, 505, 550 Lewis V. S., 120 Ala. 339, 22 Lewis V. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 397, 888 Lewis V. S., 33 Ga. 131, 51 Lewis V. S., 72 Ga. 164, 9 Lewis V. S., 105 Ga. 657, - 280 Lewis V. S., 148 Ind. 346, 274 Lewis V. S., 49 Miss. 354, 238 Lewis V. S., 7 Tex. App. 567, 314 Lewis V. S., 29 Tex. App. 201, 817 Liberman v. S.-, 26 Neb. 464, 357 License Cases, 5 How. (U. S.) 540, 372 373 Licette v. S., 23 Ga. 57, ' 190 Liggett V. P., 26 Colo. 364, 379, 886 Lightfoot V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 650, 207 Ligon V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 403, 132 Lill V. Stookey, 72 111. 495, 907 Lillard v. S., 151 Ind. 322, 7 Lillie V. McMillan, 52 Iowa 463, 268 Lilly V. P., 148 III. 473, 623 Limouze v. P., 58 111. App. 314, 180 Linbeck v. S., 1 Wash. 336, 204 Lincoln v. P., 20 111. 365, 132 Lindley v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 165, 281 Lindsay v. Clayton Dist. Court, 75 Iowa 509, 433 Lindsay v. P., 63 N. Y. 143, 836 Lindsey v. S., 48 Ala. 169, 570 Lindsey v. S., 38 Ohio St. 507, 263 Linehan v. S., 113 Ala. 70, 21, 836 Lingo V. S., 29 Ga. 470, 37 Link V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 252, 742 Lionetti v. P., 183 111. 253, 600 Lippman v. City of South Bend, 84 Ind. 276, 487, 489 Lippman v. P., 175 111. 101, 647, 655, 683 Lipschitz V. P., 25 Colo. 261, 235, 236, 315, 323 Lipscomb v. S., 75 Miss. 559, 2T Little V. Com., 25 Gratt. (Va.) 921, 786 Little V. P., 157 111. 157, 641, 642, 849, 851, 872, 906 Little V. S., 90 Ind. 338, 429 Little V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 654, 726 Livingston v. Swift, 23 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1, 461 Locke V. S., 32 N. H. 106, 131 Lockett V. S., 47 Ala. 42, 310 Lockett V. S., 63 Ala. 5, 235, 237 Lockhart v. S. (Tex.), 13 S. W. 993, 132 Lockridge v. Lockridge, 3 Dana (Ky.) 28, 443 Lockwood V. S., 1 Ind. 161, 437 Lockwood V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 137, 127 Loeb V. S., 75 Ga. 258, 364 Loehr v. P., 132 111. 509, 254, 702, 704, 705 Logan V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 85, 2 Logan V. V. S., 144 U. S. 263, 327 xlviii : TABLE OF CASES. {References are to Pages.] Logg V. P., 92 111. 602, 795, 858, 860, 862 Logglns V. S., 12 Tex. App. 65, 766 Logsdon V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 413, 625 Lolseau v. S., 114 Ala. 34, 574 Lomax v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 318, 313 Lomax v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 099, 426 Long, Ex parte, 114 Cal. 159, 931 Long V. Com., 18 Ky. L. 176, 50 Long V. Dow, 17 N. H. 470, 528 Long v. Hitchcock, 9 C. & P. 619, 864 Long V. McLean, 88 N. C. 3, 459 Long V. P., 102 III. 337, 54, 742, 749 Long V. P., 135 111. 435, 721, 731 Long V. S., 12 Ga. 293, 215, 216, 219, 687 Long V. S., 38 Ga. 491, 726 Long V. S., 54 Ga. 564, 884 Long V. S., 73 Md. 527, 575 Long V. S., 36 Tex. 6, 875 Long V. S., 10 Tex. App. 186, 829 Long V. S., 22 Tex. App. 194, 568 Long V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 576, 116 Longfellow v. S., 10 Neb. 105, 903 Longford v. P.. 134 111. 444, 204 Loomis V. Francis, 17 111. 206, 908 Loomis V. P., 67 N. Y. 329, 102, 103, 108, 158 Looney v. P., 81 111. App. 370, 898 Loop V. Gould, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 585, 437 Loper V. S., 3 How. (Miss.) 429, 740 Lopez V. S., 34 Tex. 133, 836 Lopez V. S., 28 Tex. App. 343, 123 Lopez v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 649, 179 Lord V. S., 16 N. H. 325, 115, 299, 300, 505, 778, 901 Lorton v. S., 7 Mo. 55, 111 Lossaso, In re, 15 Colo. 163, 690, 691 Lossen v. S., 62 Ind. 437, 225, 282 Lott T. S., 122 Ind. 393, 311 Lott T. S., 24 Tex. App. 723, 128 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 223, 356 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Falvey, 104 Ind. 409, 803 Love T. P., 160 III. 503, 198, 200, 619, 836, 897 Love V. S., 15 Tex. App. 563, 128 Love V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 27, 291 Lovejoy v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 89, 255 Lovell V. S., 45 Ind. 550, 896 Loven v. P., 158 IIH 167, 452 Lovett V. S., 29 Fla. 356, 744 Lovett V. S.. 80 Ga. 255, 817 Low V. Mitchell, 18 Me. 372, 525, 526 Lowder v. S.. 63 Ala. 143, 197 Lowe V. P., 28 III. 518, 352 Lowe V. S., 57 Ga. 171, 111, 118 Lowe V. S., 97 Ga. 792, 83, 788 Lowe V. S., Ill Ga. 650, 162 Lowell V. Gathrlght, 97 Ind. 313, 650 Lowensteln v. McCadden, 92 Tenn. 614, 745 Lowenthal, Matter of, 74 Cal. 109, 432 Lowery v. Howard, 103 Ind. 440, 929 Lowery v. P., 172 111. 471, 514, 516 Lowery v. Rainwater, 70 Mo. 152, 573 Lowery v. S., 30 Tex. 402, 317 Lowery v. State Life Ins. Co., 153 Ind. 102, 745 Lowry v. S., 12 Lea (Tenn.) 145, 27 Lowther v. S., 4 Ohio C. C. 522, 533 Loyd V. S., 45 Ga. 57, 638 Lucas V. S., 92 Ga. 454, 359 Lucas V. S., 110 Ga. 756, 615 Lucas V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 290, 108 Luckie V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 562, ) 548 Ludden v. S., 31 Neb. 429, 446, 448 Luetzler v. Perry, 18 Ohio C. C. 826, 932 Luis Oteiza y Cortes, In re, 136 U. S. 330, 92» Luke V. S., 49 Ala. 30, 235 Luker V. S. (Miss.), 14 So. 259, 245 Lunenberger v. S., 74 Miss. 379, 361 Lunsford v. S., 29 Tex. App. 205, 132 Lusk V. S., 64 Miss. 845, 234, 317 Lutton V. S., 14 Tex. App. 518, 179 Lycan v. P., 107 111. 428, 148, 747 Lyman, Matter of, 160 N. Y. 96, 371 Lynch v. P., 38 111. 497, 691 Lynch v. S., 89 Ala. 18, 105 Lynch v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 693, 256 Lynn v. Com., 11 Ky. L. 772, 91 Lynn v. P., 170 111. 536, 41, 44, 626 Lynn v. S., 84 Md. 67, 528 Lyon V. Lyon, 21 Conn. 185, 459 Lyons v. P., 68 111. 273, 198, 200, 702, 704, 705, 723, 897, 898 Lyons v. P., 137 III. 602, 35, 818, 820, 824, 86S Lyons v. S., 52 Ind. 426, 66, 6T Lyons T. S., 25 Tex. App. 403, 294 M Maas v. Ter. (Okla.), 63 Pac. 960, 624 Mabry v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 396, llT MacDonald v. U. S., 63 Fed. 426, 57S Macdonnell, In re, 11 Blatchf. 79, 931 Mackln v. P., 115 111. 321, 411, 414, 415, 423, 776, 704 Mackln v. S., 59 N. J. L. 495, 620 Madden v. S., 148 Ind. 183, 123 Maddox v. S., 87 Ga. 429, 258 Maddox v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 832 361 Madison v. S., 16 Tex. App. 435, 99 Magee v. P., 139 111. 142, 204, 207, 210, 830 Magellan Pirates, The, 1 Spinks Bccl. & Adm. 81, 612 Magennls v. Parkhurst, 4 N. J. Eq. 433, 452, 453 Magner v. P., 97 111. 333, 274, 275, 645, 649 Maguire v. S., 47 Md. 485, 875 Mahan v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1807, 369 Mahanke v. Cleland, 76 Iowa 401, 440 Maher v. P., 24 111. 242, 624 Maher v. P., 10 Mich. 216, 8, 21, 53 Maher v. S., 3 Minn. 444, 773 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, 918 Maiden v. Com., 82 Ky.. 133, 896 Maier, Ex parte, 103 Cal. 476, 275 Malllet V. P., 42 Mich. 262, 83, 90 Main T. McCarty, 15 111. 441, 684 Mains V. S., 42 Ind. 327, 298 Malcolmson v. Scott, 56 Mich. 459, 686 Maley v. S., 31 Ind. 192, 160 Malison, In re, 36 Kan. 725, 690 Malone v. Com., 91 Ky. 307, 62 Malone v. S., 77 Miss. 812, 59 Malone v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 381, 361 Maloney v. P., 38 111. 62, 522 Malson v. S., 75 Ind. 142, 519, 520 Maney, In re, 20 Wash. 509, 918 Mangham v. S., 87 Ga. 549, 205, 901 Mangold v. Thorpe, 33 N. J. L. 134, 682 Mangrum v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 94, 623 Mann v. Maxwell, 83 Me. 146, 526 TABLE OP CASES. xlix [References are to Pages.J Mann v. P., 35 III. 467, 518, 520, 522 Mann v. S., 34 Ga. 1, 550 Manning v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 180, 340 Mansfield v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 901, 303 Mansur v. S., 60 Ind. 357, 346 Mapes V. P., 69 111. 529, T59, 761, 762 Mapes V. S., 13 Tex. App. 85, 887 Maranda v. S., 44 Tex. 442, 173 Marceau, In re, 15 N. Y. Cr. 92, 70 March v. P., 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 391, 323 Marianna Flora, The, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 612 Marion v. S., 16 Neb. 349, 642, 845 Markham v. U. S., 160 U. S. 319, 421 Marljs V. S., 101 Ind. 353, 523 Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, 925 Marlsbary v. S., 10 Ind. App. 21, 53 Marmont v. S., 48 Ind. 21, 366 Marquis v. City of Chicago, 27 111. App. 251, 573 Marsh, Ex parte, 57 Fed. 719, 274 Marshall, In re (Idaho), 56 Pac. 470, 930 Marshall v. Blackshire, 44 Iowa 475, 650 Marshall v. S., 120 Ala. 390, 471 Marshall v. S., 94 Ga. 589, 731 Marshan v. S., 123 Ind. 128, 708 MarshaU v. S., 13 Tex. App. 492, 57 Marshall v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 878 208 Marston v. Jenners, 11 N. H. 156, 528 Martha v. S., 26 Ala. 72, 237 Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa 286, 374, 648 Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh. 745, Martin v. P., 23 111. 342, Martin v. P., 54 III. 226, Martin v. P., 76 111. 499, Martin v. P., 88 111. 393, Martin v. S., 28 Ala. 71, Martin v. S., 59 Ala. 34, Martin t. S., 62 Ala. 119, Martin v. S., 104 Ala. 71, Martin v. S., 119 Ala. 1, Martin v. S., 125 Ala. 64, Martin v, S. (Ala.J, 28 So. 92, Martin v. S., 58 Ark. 3, Martin v. S., 148 Ind. 519, Martin v. S., 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 234, Martin v. S., 18 Tex. App. 224, (Va. 262 348, 352 865, 868 892 371 234, 237 366 520, 527 126 8 809 130 536 132 295 267 Martin v. S., 36 Tex. Cf."632, 128, 165, 871 Martin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 5 S. W. 859, 176 Martin v. S., 79 Wis. 165, 749 Martin Cantine Co. v. Warshauer, 28 N. Y. Supp. 139, 462 Martinez v. S., 41 Tex. 126, 105 Martinez v. S., 16 Tex. App. 122, 104 Martinez v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 479, 424, 426 Marvin v. S., 53 Ark. 395, 426 Mary v. S., 24 Ark. 44, 241 Marzen v. P., 190 III. 87, 3, 665, 775, 811, 846, 900 Mascal v. P., 55 111. App. 482, 527 Mascolo V. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 585 Mask V. S., 36 Miss. 77, 50 Mason, In re, 8 Mich. 70, 890 Mason T. P., 2 Colo. 373, 131 Mason v. P., 26 N. Y. 200, 204 Mason v. S., 55 Ark. 529, 426, 589 Mason v. S., 29 Tex. App. 24, 63, 65, 67, 68 Mason v. S., 32 Tex. App. 95, 266 Mason v. Thompson, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 305, 385 hughes' C. L. — iv Masterson v. S., 144 Ind. 240, 409. 420 Mathedy v. Com., 14 Ky. L. 182, „20, 30 Mathews v. S., 101 Ga. 547, 79, 502 Mathews v. S., 10 Tex. App. 279, „ 157 Mathis T. Com., 11 Ky. L. 882, 530, 533 Mathis V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 39, 835 Mathis v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 549, ^ 55 Matson v. P., 15 111. 536, 743, 765 Matthews v. P^ 6 Colo. App. 456, 749 Matthews v. Spangenberg, 15 Fed. 813, 442, 462 Matthews v. S., 86 Ga. 782, 202, 207, 209 Matthews v. S., 4 Ohio St. 539, 216, 219 Matthews v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 172, 193 Matthews v. U. S., 161 U. S. 500, 427 Mattox V. U. S., 156 U. S. 237, 25, 26, 27, 28, 787 W. 346 426 879 311 458 87 , 92 182 463 239 (Va.) 409, 411 178 485 Mauck V. S.. 66 Ind. 177. Maul V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S, 199 Maule', Ex parte, 19 Neb. 273, Maupin v. S., 89 Tenn. 367, Mausby, Ex parte, 13 Md. 625, Maxey v. S., 66 Ark. 523, Maxfield T. S., 54 Neb. 44, Maxwell v. P., 158 111. 256, Maxwell v. Rives, 11 Nev. 213, Maxwell v. S., 68 Miss. 339, Maxwell v. S., 3 Beisk. (Tenn.) 420, 59 Maxwell v. Swigart, 48 Neb. 789, 481 May, In re, 1 Fed. 737, 444 May V. Dorsett, 30 Ga. 116, 793 May V. P., 60 111. 119, 181, 642, 865 May V. P., 92 111. 346, 808, 810, 907, 908 May V. Shumway, 10 Gray (Mass.) 86, 431 May V. S., 85 Ala. 14, 236 May V. S., 38 Neb. 211, 132 May V. S., 15 Tex. App. 436, 159 Mayberry v. S., 107 Ala. 64, 309 Maybush v. Com., 29 Gratt. 857 Mayer v. P., 80 N. T. 364, Mayer v. S., 64 N. J. L. 323, Mayes v. P., 106 III. 314, 4, 38, 746, 749 Maynard v. P., 135 IH. 432, 411, 413, 417, 421, 518, 520, 522, 524 525, 662, 701, 709, 808, 824, 825 Mayo V. S., 30 A4a. 32, 723 Mayor, etc., of City of N. Y. v. Bige- low, 34 N. Y. Supp. 92, 483 Mays v. S., 89 Ala. 37, 283 Mays V. S., 28 Tex. App. 484, 173 Mays V. Williams, 27 Ala. 268, 864 McAdoo V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 603, 291 McAfee v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 124, 513 McAleer v. S., 46 Neb. 116, 138, 145 McAlister-v. Clark, 33 Conn. 91, 537 McAlister v. S., 17 Ala. 439, 5 McArthur t. S., 59 Ark. 431, 339 McArthur v. S. (Neb.), 83 N. W. 196, 631, 723 McBarron v. S., 63 N. J. L. 43, 599 McBride v. Com., 76 Ky. 337, 11.3 McBride v. P., 5 Colo. App. 91, 29 McBride v. S., 39 Pia. 442, 560, 567 McBride v. U. S., 101 Fed. 821, 149 McCain, In re, 9 S. D. 57, 444 McCain v. S., 57 Ga. 390, 540 McCalman v. S., 96 Ala. 98, 564 M'Candlish v. Com., 76 Va. 1002, 274 McCann v. P., 88 111. 105, 734 McCann v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. Ill, 484 McCarley v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 373, 570 McCarthy, Ex parte, 29 Cal. 395, 444 TAB6K OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages.J McCartney v. S., 3 Ind. 353, 262 McCarty v. P., 51 111. 231, 790, 832 Mccarty v. S., 44 Ind. 214, 640 McCarty v. S., 127 Ind. 223, 131, 220 McCarty v. S., 1 Wash. St. 377, 110 MoCaughey v. S. (Ind.), 59 N. E. 169, 497 McCauley v. P., 88 1/1. 579, 734 McClaln v. S., 49 N. J. L. 471, 300 McClaine v. Tpr., 1 Wash. St. 345, 238 McCIellan t. Bond, 92 Ind. 424, 745 McClellan t. S., 53 Ala. 640, 293, 296 McCIellan v. S., 118 Ala. 122, 376 McOlerkin v. S., 105 Ala. 107, 426 McClerkin v. S., 20 Fla. 879, 881 McClernan v. Com., 11 Ky. L. 301, 859 McClung T. McOlung, 40 Mich. 493, 445 McClung v. McClung, 33 N. J. Eq. 462, 434 McColIum V. Indianapolis, etc., B. Co., 94 111. 534, 884 McComb V. Weaver, 11 Hun (N. T.) 271, 431 McCombs V. S., 109 Ga. 496, 264 McCombs V. S., 8 Ohio St. 643, 87 McConnell v. S., 46 Ind. 298, 438 447 449 McConnell v. S., 25 Tex. App. '329, ' 50 3IcCord V. P., 46 N. Y. 470, 171 TMcCord v. S., 79 A4a. 269, 120 3IcCord V. S., 83 Ga. 521, 788 McCorkle v. S^^ 14 Ind. 39, 903 McCormick v. Sheridan, 77 CaU 253, 439 MoCormlck v. S., 26 Tex. App.. 678, 215 McCormick v. Wheeler, 36 111. 114, 913 MeCourt v. P., 64 N. Y. 583, 193 lacCowan v. S., 58 Ark. 17, 113, 116, 117 JlcCoy V. Clark, 104 Iowa 491, 371 McCoy V. P., 65 III. 440, 524, 527 McCoy V. P., 71 111. 112, 518, 524 McCoy V. P., 175 III. 230, 2, 11, 36, 43, 625, 643, 865 McCoy V. S., 52 Ga. 287, 904 McCoy V. S., 27 Tex. App. 415, 859 McCrary v. S., 96 Ga. 348, 202 'McCreary v. S., 73 Ala. 480, 374 McCredie v. Senior, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 378, 447 IMcCrory v. S. (Miss.), 25 So. 671, 624, 627 ;M Palmer v. S., 42 Ohio St. 596, 768 Palmer v.. S., 47 Tenn. 82, 194 Palmer v. S. (Wyo.), 59 Pac. 793, 626 Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kan. 352, 274 Pankey v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 80, 408, 417 Panton v. P., 114 III. 508, M, 624, 861 Panton v. Zebley, 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 394, 431 Papworth v. City of Fitzgerald, 106 Ga. 378, 372 Papworth v. Goodnow, 104 Ga. 653, 371 Parham v. S. (Ala.), 27 So. 778, 284 Park V. City of Boston, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 218, 915 Park V. Park, 80 N. Y. 156, 431 Parker, In re, 44 Kan. 279. 528 . Parker v. Johnson, -25 Ga. 577, 864 Parker v. P., 97 III. 37, 257, 262, 266, 70ft Parker v. P., Ill HI. 585, 273, 274 Parker v. S., 39 Ala. 365, 129, 131 Parker v. S.. 77 Ala. 47, ' 515 Parker v. S., 118 Ind. 328, . 54 Parker v. S., 136 Ind. 284, 872 Parker v. S., 67 Md. 329,. 84 Parker v. S., 61 N. J. L. 308, 300, 306 Parker v. S., 4 Ohio St. 563, 365 Parker v. S., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 476, 35T Parker v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 790, 194 Parker v. Ter. (Ariz.), 52 Pac. 361, 734 Parker v. Ter., 9 Okla. 109, 81 Parkinson v. P., 135 111. 403, 89, 739, 742 Parks V. S., 94 Ga. 601, 162 Parks V. S., 20 Neb. 519, 697 Parks V. S., 29 Tex. App. 597, 12T Parks V. S. (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 174, 50 Parks V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 378, 732 Parmer v. S., 91 Ga. 152, 563 Parnell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 563, 92 Parris v. P., 76 111. 277, 226, 720 Parrish v. Com., 81 Va. 1, 829 Parrish v. S., 14 Neb. 60, 643 Parrish v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 583, 59 Parrott v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 761, 51 Parsons v. S., 21 Ala. 300, 5 Parsons v. S., 81 Ala. 577, 621, 623, 793 Parsons v. S., 43 Ga. 197, 836 Parsons v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 64, 807 Pate V. S., 94 Ala. 14, 829 Patrick V. P., 132 111. 533, 616, 716, 718 Patrick V. Warner, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 397, 446 Patterson, In re, 99 N. C. 407, 455, 46» Patterson v. Hayden, 17 Ore. 238, 544 Patterson v. S., 91 Ala. 58, " 52 Patterson v. S., 75 Miss. 670, 625 Patterson v. S., 48 N. J. L. 381, 761, 773, 778, 914 Patterson v. S., 49 N. J. L. 326, 924 Patterson v. S., 62 N. J, L. 82, 318; Patterson v. S., 12 Tex. App. 222, 572 Patterson v. S., 17 Tex. App. 102, 514 Patton V. S., 93 Ga. Ill, 224 Patton V. S., 6 Ohio St. 470, yia Ivi TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.'] 406 885 827 33 177 Patton V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 389, Paulk V. City of Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728, ooo Paulk V. S., 52 Ala. 427, 525 Paull V. Padelford, 82 Mass. 263, 526 Payne v. Com., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 370, 2 Payne v. P., 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 103, 100 Payne v. S., 60 Ala. 80, 790 Payne v. S., 66 Ark. 545, 775 Payne y. S., 61 Miss. 161, 25 Payne v. S.. 21 Tex. App. 184, 207 Payne v. S., 40 Tex. Gr. 290, 74, 91, 211 Payner v. Com. (Ky.), 19 S. W. 927, 62 Paynter v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1562, 704 Peabody v. S., 72 Miss. 104, 541 Peak V. P., 71 111. 278, 661 Peak V. P., 76 111. 291, 522, 529, 864, 914 Peak V. S., 50 N. J. L. 179, 27 Pearee v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 301, 923 Pearson v. S., 66 Miss. 510, 385 Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 653 Pease v. S., 91 Ga. 18, Peck V. Parclien, 52 Iowa 46, Peck V. S., 50 N. J. L. 179, Peckham v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 S. W, 295, Peel V. Peel, 50 Iowa 521, 443, 445 Peete v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 513, 249 Petferling v. S., 40 Tex. 486, 85 Pehlman v. S., 115 Ind. 131, 902 Felamourges v. Clark, 9 Iowa 16, 805 Pells V. S., 20 Fla. 774, 199, 712 Peltes V. Com., 126 Mass. 242, 638 Pelzer v. Hughes, 27 S. C. 408, 458 Pendry V. S., 18 Fla. 191, 172 Penny v. S., 88 Ala. 105. 138 Pennybaker v. S., 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 484, Penrod v. P., 89 111. 150. Pentecost v. S., 107 Ala. 81, P. v. Abbott, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 192, 86, 87 P. V. Abbott, 53 Cal. 284. 108 P. V. Abbott, 101 Cal. 645, 206 P. V. Abbott (Cal.), 4 Pac. 769, 32 P. V. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, 76, 87 P. V. Abbott, 116 Mich. 263, 499 P. V. Adams, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 190, 182 918 P. V. Adams, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 236. ' 448 P. V. Adams, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 475, 376 P. V. Adelphi Club, 149 N. Y. 5, 366 P. V. Adler, 140 N. Y. 331, 258 P. V. Ah Bean, 77 Cal. 12, 709 P. V. Ah Chung, 54 Cal. 398, 761 P. V. Ah Fook, 62 Cal. 493, 388, 389 P. v. Ah Fung, 16 Cal. 137, 810 P. V. Ah Ho, 1 Idaho 691, 304 P. V. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal. 171, 727 P. V. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645, 261 P. V. Ah Sing, 19 Cal. 598, 116 P. V. Ah Sing, 51 Cal. 372, 641, 642, 643 P. v. Ah Sing, 95 Cal. 657, 424 P. V. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421, 404, 469 P. V. Ah Woo, 28 Cal. 205, P. T. Ah Ye, 31 Cal. 451, P. V. Ah Yek, 29 Cal. 575, P, V. Ah Yute, 53 Cal. 613, P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 642, 705, 820, 845, 846, 8r2 P. V. Alexander, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 211, 455 P. V. Alibez, 49 Cal. 452, 671 P. V. Alien, 155 111. 62, 664, 926 365 849 470 255 202, 895 80 730 81, 498 P. T. Allen, 160 111. 400, 929 P. V. Allen, 122 Mich. 123, 484 P. V. Allen, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 76, 142 P. V. Allen, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 445, 267 P. V. Altman, 147 N. Y. 473, 257, 263 P. v. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230, 743, 809 P. V. Amanacus, 50 Cal. 233, 788 P. V. Ammerman, 118 Cal. 23, 217 P. V. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65, 363 P. V. Anderson, 80 Cal. 205, 213 P. V. Anderson (Cal.), 63 Pac. 668, 42 P. V. Anderson, 53 Mich. 60, 726 P. v. Anderson, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 294, 104 P. V. Andrews, 115 N. Y. 428, 366 P. T. Anthony, 56 Cal. 397, 845, 900 P. V. Anthony, 129 III. 218, 912, 913 P. V. Anthony, 40 N. Y. Supp. 279, 453 457 458 P. V. Aplin, 86 Mich. 393, ' 19^, 766 P. V. Appleton, 120 Cal. 250, 132 P. V. Arendt, 60 111. App. 89, 482 P. V. Arlington, 123 Cal. 356, 259 P. V. Amett, 129 Cal. 306, 676 P. V. Arnold, 40 Mich. 710, 800) P. V. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268, 316, 323, 324, 327, 819 P. V. Arthur, 93 Cal. 536, 207 P. V. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288, 642, 829 P. T. Atherton, 51 Cal. 495, 778 P. V. Babcock, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 201, 158 P. v. Badgley, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 53, 810 P. V. Baker, 100 Cal. 188, 247, 248 P. V. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78, 511 P. V. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340, 177, 635 P. V. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244, 85, 91 P. V. Ball, 14 Cal. 101, 115 P. T. Banker, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 26, 819 P. V. Barkelow. 37 Mich. 455, 323 P. T. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 813, 815, 816 P. V. Barnes, 113 Mich. 213, 364 P. V. Barney, 114 Cal. 554, 84, 86 P. V. Barnhart, 59 Cal. 381, 212 P. V. Barrick, 49 Cal. 242, 379 P. V. Barrie, 49 Cal. 342, 812 P. V. Barry, 90 Cal. 41, 220 P. V. Barry, 94 Cal. 481, 193, 20q P. V. Barthleman, 120 Cal. 7, 39 P. V. Bartz, 53 Mich. 493, 290, 685 P. V. Bates, 29 N. Y. Supp. 894, 401 P. T. Bauer, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 407, 876 P. V. Beevers, 99 Cal. 286, 510, 511, 515 P. V. Behee, 90 Mich. 356, 173, 176, 177 P. T. Belcher. 58 Mich. 325, 116 P. V. Bellet, 99 Mich. 151, 353, 355 P. V. Bemmerly, 87 Cal. 117, 27, 32 P. V. Benham, 160i N. Y. 402, 39 P. v. Benham, 63 N. Y. Supp. 923, 817, 884 P. V. Bennett, 122 Mich. 281, 255 P. V. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 139, 824, 846 P. V. Benoit, 97 Cal. 249, 535 P. V. Bently, 77 Cal. 7, 327 P. v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 405, 433 P. V. Berlin, 9 Utah 383. 102 P. V. Bernor, 115 Mich. 692, 84, 91 P. V. Berry, 107 Mich. 256, 380 P. V. Beverly, 108 Mich. 509, 23 P. V. Bezy, 67 Cal. 223, 833 P. V. Bibby, 91 Cal. 470, 254 P. V. Bidleman, 104 Cal. 608, 144, 825 P. V. Biggins, 65 Cal. 564, 11 P. v. Bill, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 95, 782 P. V. Bird, 124 Cal. 32, 263 P. V. Blackman, 127 Cal. 248, 152 P. V. Blake, 65 Cal. 275, 624 TABLE OF CASES. Ivii [References are to Pages."] P. V. Blake, 52 Mich. 566, 364 P. V. Blakeley, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 176, 794 P. T. Blanchard, 90 N. Y. 314, 166, 182 P. V. Bleeker. 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 256, 330 P. V. Bliskey, 47 N. Y. Supp. 974, 286 P. V. Block, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 583, 209 P. T. Board of Supervisors, 125 111. 339. 760 P. V. Bodine, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 304, 763 P. V. Bogart, 36 Cal. 245, 115, 117 P. V. Boggs, 20 Cal. 432, 901 P. V. Bolanger, 71 Cal. 17, 127, 782 P. V. Boo Doo Hong, 122 Cal. 606, 485 P. T. Booth, 121 Mich. 131, 293 P. V. Borgetto, 99 Mich. 336, 793 P. V. Bork, 78 N. Y. 346, 338 P. V. Bosquet, 116 Cal. 75, 790 P. V. Bosworth, 64 Hun (N. Y.) 72, 680 P. V. Bouchard, 27 N. Y. Supp. 201, 461 P. T. Bowkus, 109 Mich. 360, 861 P. T. Boyle, 116 Cal. 658, 585 p. T. Bracco, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 206, 59 P. T. Bradley, 60 HI. 401, 924 P. v. Bradner, 10 N. Y. St. 667, 742 P. V. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182, 921, 932 P. V. Brady, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1118, 286 P. V. Braisted, 13 Colo. App. 532, 368 P. V. Brandt, 14 N. Y. Supp. 419, 67 J». V. Brannon, 47 Cal. 96, 643 P. T. Brewer, 27 Mich. 134, 65, 549 P. V. Bridges, 142 111. 38, 273, 274 p. V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553, 645 P. T. Briggs, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 17, 717 P. V. Brigham, 2 Mich. 550, 249 P. V. Bristol, 23 Mich. 118, 64, 67 P. V. Brooks, 131 N. Y. 321, 831 P. T. Brotherton, 43 Cal. 530, 770 P. V. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388, 327 772 787 P. V. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.)'405,' 432 P. T. Brown, 46 Cal. 102, 730 P. V. Brown, 47 Cal. 447, 92 P. V. Brown, 105 Cal. 66, 100 P. V. Brown, 34 Mich. 339, 510 P. V. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571, 802 P. V. Brown, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 41, 454 P. V. Brown, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1111, 66 P. V. Bryant. 119 Cal. 595, 159, 163, 182 P. T. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 689, 300, 305, 539 P. V. Buchanan, 145 N. Y. 1, 39 P. V. Buckland, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 593 467 639 P. T. Buddensleck, 103 N. Y. 487, ' 771 P. T. Buffa Fish Co., 62 N. T. Supp. 543 275 P. V. Burke, 11 Wend. 129, 112 P. v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614, 204 P. V. Burns, 75 Cal. 627, 401 P. V. Burns, 121 Cal. 529, 113 P. V. Burns, 67 Mich. 537, 207 p. V. Burridge, 99 Mich. 343, 245, 876 P. V. Burt, 51 Mich. 199, 684 P. v. Burwell, 106 Mich. 27, 90, 530, 726 P. V. Bush, 65 Cal. 129, 790, 863, 867 P. V. Bush, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 133, 234 P. V. Bush, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 552, 199 901 P. V. Bussell, 59 Mich. 104, ' 659 P. V. Butler, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 347, 875 P. V. Button, 106 Cal. 628, 627 P. V. Byron, 103 Cal. 675, 466, 467 P. V. Caldwell, 107 Mich. 374, 384, 862 P. V. Calvert, 67 Hun (N. Y.) 649, 208 P. V. Camp, 139 N. Y. 87, 71 P. V. Campbell, 40 Cal. 129, 706 P. V. Campbell, 127 Cal. 278, 107 P. V. Campbell, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 386, 102 P. V. Cannon. 139 N. Y. 32, 807 P. V. Cappola (Cal.), 56 Pac. 248, 220 P. V. Carabin, 14 Cal. 438, 127 P. V. Carey, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 241, 298 P. V. Carlton, 57 Cal. 83, 828 P. V. Carney, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 47, 525 P. V. Carolan, 71 Cal. 195, 175 P. V. Carpenter, 102 N. Y. 238, 623 P. V. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 82, 66 P. V. Carroll, 80 Cal. 153, 341, 562 P. T. Carter, 122 Mich. 668, 150, 153, 155 P. V. Cartwright, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 362, 447, 453 P. V. Casey (Mich.), 82 N. W. 883, 834 P. V. Casey, 96 N. Y. 115, 766, 770, 771, 772 P. V. Cassidy, 133 N. Y. 612, 818 P. V. Cassidy, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 579, 244 P. V. CasSin, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 623, 132 P. V. Caton, 25 Mich. 388, 248 P. V. Cavanaugh, 112 Cal. 674, 588 P. V. Cavanaugh, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 658, 924 P. V. Cavanaugh, 62 How. Prac. (N. Y ) 187 51 P. v. Cease, 80 Mich. 576, 534, 536 P. V. Cesena, 00 Cal. 381, 882 P. V. Chadwick, 7 Utah 134, 120 P. V. Chapman, 62 Mich. 280, 76, 637 P. V. Chase, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 256, 509 512 P. V. Chase, 79 Hun (N. Y.) 296, 25 27 32 P. V. Chaves, 122 Cal. 134, ' ' 36 P. V. Cheong Foon Ark, 61 Cal. 527, 642 P. V. Chin Hane, 108 Cal. 597, 790 P. V. Chin Mook Sow, 51 Cal. 597, 25 P. V. ChoynskI, 95 Cal. 640, 272 P. V. Christmas, 66 111. 162, 522 P. V. Church, 116 Cal. 300, 214, 215 P. V. Cignarale, 110 N. Y. 32, 741 P. V. Cipperly, 101 N. Y. 634, 477 P. V. Civille, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 497, 139 P. V. Clark, 106 111. 32, 787, 799 P. V. Clark, 10 Mich. 310, 319, 322 P. V. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, 89, 543, 544, 548, 549 P. v. Clark, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 360, 888 P. v. Clarke, 130 Cal. 642, 41 P. V. Clausen, 120 Cal. 381, 189 P. V. Clements, 26 N. Y. 193, 256 P. V. Clements, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 353, 421 P. V. Cleveland, 49 Cal. 577, 731, 864 P. V. Clough, 17 Wend. (N. T.) 351, 171 P. V. Cobler, 108 Cal. 538, 134, 142, 152, 153 P. V. Cohen, 8 Cal. 42, 148 P. V. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 413 P. V. Cole, 113 Mich. 83, 522 P. V. Cole, 137 N. Y. 530, 182 P. V. Collins, 53 Cal. 185, 198, 619 P. V. Collins, 102 Cal. 345, 336 P. V. Coiiison, 85 Mich. 105, 27S P. V. Colvin, 118 Cal. 349, 39 P. V. Coming, 2 Const. 1, 669 P. V. Compton, 123 Cal. 403, 252 P. V. Comstock, 176 III. 192, 756 P. V. Congleton, 44 Cal. 92, 55, 56 P. V. Conley, 106 Mich. 424, 58 P. V. Connor, 126 N. Y. 278, 86 P. V. Connor, 142 N. Y. 130, 675 Iviii TABLE OF CASES. ^References are to Pages.1 664 449 P. V. Converse, 74 Mich. 478, 139 P. V. Cook, 61 Cal. 478, 62 P. V. Cook, 39 Mich. 236, 5, 619, 628 P. V. Cook, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 69, 159 P. v. Coon, 45 Cal. 672, 129, 854 P. V. Coon, 15 Wend. {N. Y.) 277, 401, 713 P. V. Cooper, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 379, 54 P. V. Copely, 4 Cr. L. Mag. 192, 688 P. V. Copsey, 71 Cal. 548, 784 P. T. Corbin, 56 N. Y. 363, 264 P. V. Cornelius, 55 N. Y. Supp. 723, 91 P. V. Cotterall, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 115, 233, 235 P. V. Cotton, 14 111. 114, 652 P. V. Courier, 79 Mich. 366, 74, 76 P. T. Courtney, 94 N. Y. 490, 409, 414 P. T. Court of Oyer & Terminer, 101 N. Y. 245, 168, 430, 444, 448 P. T. Court of Sessions, 141 N. Y. 288 P. V. 'Court of Sessions, 147 N. Y. 290, P. T. Court of Sessions, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 242, 447, 449 447, 449 P. V. Cox, 70 Mich. 247, 269, 353, 355 P. V. Coyne, 116 Cal. 295, 230 P. V. Craig, 111 Cal. 460, 36, 785 P. V. Craig, 116 Mich. 388, 550 P. V. Cramer, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1039, 376 P. V. Creigan, 121 Cal. 554, 264 P. V. Crenshaw, 46 Cal. 65, 701 P. V. Crews, 102 Cal. 174, 26 P. V. Crlssie, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 529, 162, 367 P. V. Cronk, 58 N. Y. Supp. 13, 210 P. V. Cross, 135 N. Y. 536, 920 P. V. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 337 832 P. V. Crotty, 47 N. Y. Supp. 845, 377 P. V. Crowley, 100 Cal. 478, 211 P. V. Crowley, 90 Mich. 366, P. V. Crowley, 102 N. Y. 234, P. V. Crowley, 23 Hu) (N. Y.) 413, P. V. Cruger, 102 N. Y. 510, P. V. Cuff, 122 Cal. 589, P. V. Cummings, 117 Cal. 497, P. V. Cummons, 56 Mich. 544, P. V. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 668, P. V. Cunningham, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 608, 846 P. V. Curley, 99 Mich. 238, 208, 209 P. V. Curran (Cal.), 31 Pac. 1116, 132 P. V. Curtis, 95 Mich. 212, 379, 484 P. V. Cutler, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 465, 566 P. V. Dalley, 143 N. Y. 638, 825 P. V. Dalton, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 581, 138 P. V. Dalton, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 180, P. T. Damon, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 351, P. V. Dane, 79 Mich. 361, P. V. Dane, 81 Mich. 36, P. V. Daniels, 105 Cal. 262, P. T. Daniels (Cal.), 34 Pac. 233, P. V. Danihy, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 579, 555, 557 P. V. D'Argencour, 95 N. Y. 624, 261 P. V. Davidson, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 471, 457 P. V. Davis, 64 Cal. 440, 846, 870 P. V. Davis, 97 Cal. 194, 119, 219, 808 P. V. Davis, 52 Mich. 569, P. V. Davis, 56 N. Y. 96, P. V. Davis, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 309 261, 830 P. V. Davis, 19 N. Y. Supp. 781, 132 354 74 290 154 826 180 64, 67 124 176 763 248 890 329 845 508 25, 26, 497 V. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247, 511 . V. Deacons, 109 N. Y. 374, 41, 810 . V. Dean, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 610, 127 V. Decarie, 80 Mich. 578, 377 V. De Carlo, 124 Cal. 462, 416, 417 T. Decker, 157 N. Y. 186, 39, 766, 769, 773 V. De Fore, 64 Mich. 693, 543 V. Degey, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 135, 290 V. De (Jraaff, 127 Cal. 676, 107 V. De Groot, 111 Mich. 245, 386 V. Deitz, 86 Mich. 419, 58, 826 V. Delany, 49 Cal. 395, 741 V. De Lay, 80 Cal. 52, 147 V. De Leon, 109 N. Y. 226, 69 V. Delvecchio, 18 N. Y. 352, 461 V. Demasters, 109 Cal. 607, 94, 97, 882, 884 V. Demousett, 71 Cal. 611, 62, 66 V. Denby, 108 Cal. 54, 291 V. Dereno, 106 Mich. 621, 276 V. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, V. Devine, 44 Cal. 452, V. Devine, 95 Cal. 227, V. Dewey, 2 Idaho 79, V. De Winton, 113 Cal 489 790, 909 108 643 . 403, 232, 235, 236 V. De Wolf, 62 111. 253, 660 V. Dewy, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 602, 675 V. Dick, 32 Cal. 216, 860 V. Diedrlch, 141 111. 669, 429, 445, 452, 464 V. Dill. 1 Scam. (HI.) 257, 669 V. District Court, 26 Colo. 380, 929 V. Dohring, 59 N. Y. 374, 86 V. Dolan, 96 Cal. 315, 63 V. Dolan, 51 Mich. 610, 766 V. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 257, 261 V. Donaldson, 70 Cal. 116, 161 V. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438, 922 V. Donovan, 135 N. Y. 79, 434 V. Doris, 43 N. Y. Supp. 571, 555 V. Dorthy, 46 N. Y. Supp. 970, 148 V. Dorthy, 63 N. Y. Supp. 592, 839 V. Douglass, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 26, 775 V. Dowell, 25 Mich. 247, 511 V. Dowling, 84 N. Y. 478, 189, 672 V. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85, 788 V. Draper, 15 N. Y. 543, 644 V. Druse, 103 N. Y. 655, 813, 832, 833 V. Duck, 61 Cal. 387, 835 V. Duford, 16 Mich. 90, 241 V. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 503, 128 V. Duncan, 104 Mich. 460, 85, 91 V. Dunn, 114 Mich. 355, 132 V. Dunn, 90 N. Y. ll ), 896 V. Dupree, 98 Mich. 26, 193, 194 V. Durkin, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 243, 240 P. V. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, 429, 766, 777, 803, 823, 824, 840 P. V. Durrin, 2 N. Y. Cr. 328, " P. V. Duryea, 30 N. Y. Supp. 877, P. V. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480, P. V. Earnest, 45 Cal. 29, P. V. Eastman. 77 Cal. 171, P. V. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 565, P. V. Eaton, 59 Mich. 559, P. V. Eckford, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 535, P. V. Eddy, 12 N. Y. Supp. 628, P. V. Edson, 68 Cal. 549, P. V. Edwards, 59 Cal. 359, P. V. Edwards, 93 Mich. 636, P. V. Edwards, 1 Wheeler Cr. (N, Y.) 371, 192 719 547 323 693 108 804, 837 243 323 477 392 200 202 TABLE OF CASES. lix {Beferences are to Pages.'] p. V. Ellen wood, 119 Cal. 166, 257 P. V. Elliott, 163 N. Y. 11, 832 P. V. Eppinger, 109 Cal. 294, 671 P. v. Eppinger, 114 Cal. 350, 881 P. V. Erwin, 4 Den. 10 V. Hampton, 4 Utah 258, 537, 539 V. Hanaw. 107 Mich. 337, 140 V. Hancock, 7 Utah 170, 831 V. Handley, 93 Mich. 46, 232 V. Handy, 100 Cal. 370* 237 V. Hannlgan, 58 N. Y. Supp. 703, 47, 59 v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 491 V. Hansen, 84 Cal. 291, 131 V. Harding, 53 Mich. 481, 676 V. Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 782 V. Harriden, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 344, 530, 534 V. Harrington, 42 Cal. 165, 909 V. Harris, 29 Cal. 679, 592 V. Harris, 125 Cal. 94, 42 V. Harris, 95 Mich. 87, 833 V. Harris, 103 Mich. 478, 77 V. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423. 809, 824 T. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594, 820 V. Hart, 10 Utah 204, 205 v. Hartman, 62 Cal. 562, 125 V. Hartman, 103 CaL 242, 77 V. Hartwell (N. Y.), 59 N. B. 929, 185 V. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 355, 646 V. Hawes, 98 Cal. 648, 862 V. Hawkins, 127 Cal. 373, 59 V. Hawkins, 106 Mich. 479, 147, 152, 155 v. Hawksley, 82 Mich. 71, 123 V. Hawley, 3 Mich. 330, 652 V. Hayes, 140 N. Y. 484, 414 V. Hayes, 59 N. Y. Supp. 761, 699 T. Haynes, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 450, 240 v. Haynes, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 557, 161, 172 V. Haynes, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 546, 168 T. Hearne, 66 Hun (N. Y.) 626, 132, 149 V. Heffron, 53 Mich. 529, 722 T. Henderson, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 560, 239 V. Hendrickson, 53 Mich. 525, 508 V. Hennessey, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 147, 134, 810 V. Henry, 77 Cal. 445, 199, 200 V. Henssler, 48 Mich. 49, 168, 178 V. Henwood (Mich.), 82 N. W. 70, 373 V. Hertz, 105 Cal. 660, 861 V. Hess, 85 Mich. 128, 572, 575, 910 V. Hessing, 28 111. 411, 930 V. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, 622, 865 V. Hickey, 109 Cal. 275, 585 V. Hicks, 66 Cal. 105, 219 V. Hicks, 98 Mich. 86, 77 V. Hicks, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 153, 437 V. Higuera, 122 Cal. 466, 546 V. Hildebrandt, 38 N. Y. Supp. 958 728 V. Hill, 182 111. 428, 756 v. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 580, 108 V. Hiltel (Cal.), 63 Pac. 919, 244, 245 V, Hinehman, 75 Mich. 587, 366 V. Hodgdon, 55 Cal. 72, 27 r. Hodgkln, 94 Mich. 27, 584 P. V. Hogan (Mich.), 81 N. W. 1096, 210 P. V. Hoin, 62 Cal. 120, 623 P. V. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444, 810 P. V. Holmes, 111 Mich. 364, 622 P. V. Hong Quin Moon, 92 Cal. 42, 177, 178, 179 P. V. Hood, 6 Cal. 236, 707 P. V. Hope, 62 Cal. 291, 208 P. T. Hopson, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 574, 405, 407 P. V. Horton, 46 111. App. 434, 445 P. V. Hough, 120 Cal. 538, 545 P. V. Howard, 111 Cal. 655, 411 P. V. Howard, 73 Mich, 10, 207 P. V. Howell, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 296, 249 P. T. Howes, 81 Mich. 396, 814 P. V. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326, 551 P. V. Hubert, 119 Cal. 216, 624 P. V. Huffman, 48 N. Y. Supp. 482, 377 383 P. V. Hughes, 29 Cal. 257, ' 242 P. V. Hughes, 86 Mich. 180, 364 P. V. Hughes, 90 Mich. 368, 354 P. V. Hughes, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 354, 103 P. V. Hughes, 11 Utah 100, 219, 629 P. V. Hulett, 15 N. Y. Supp. 630, 540 P. V. Hunckeler, 48 Cal. 331, 676, 678, 679 P. V. Hunt, 120 Cal. 281, 406 P. V. Hurley, 60 Cal. 74, 121, 831 P. V. Hurley, 126 Cal. 351, 389, 396 P. V. Husband. 36 Mich. 309, 139 P. V. Hustls, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 58, 547 P. V. Illinois State Reformatory, 148 111. 419, 645, 651, 653, 659, 874 P. T. Imes, 110 Mich. 250, 506 P. V. Ingersoll, 14 Abbott Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 23, 689 P. V. Isham, 109 Mich. 72, 505, 507 P. V. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269, 332, 337, 338 P. V. Jackson, 111 N. Y. 362, 840 P. V. Jackson, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 391, 87 P. V. Jackson, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 115 P. T. Jacobs, 49 Cal. 384, 789 P. V. Jacobs, 35 Mich. 36, 169, 172 P. T. Jacobs, 66 N. Y. 8, 460 P. V. Jaehne. 103 N. Y. 182, 659 P. V. Jefferey, 31 N. Y. Supp. 267, 172 P. V. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305, 384, 531, 534 P. V. Jersey, 18 Cal. 337, 103 P. V. Jochinsky, 106 Cal. 638, 207 P. V. Johnson, 91 Cal. 265, 106, 135, 154 P. V. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, 77, 87 P. V. Johnson, 113 111. 99, 139 P. V. Johnson, 81 Mich. 573, 118 P. V. Johnson, 86 Mich. 175, 289, 685 P. V. Johnson, 139 N. Y. 358, 39 P. V. Johnson, 140 N. Y. 350, 872 P. V. Johnson, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 292, 158, 160 P. V. Johnson, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 291, 2 P. V. Johnston, 46 Cal. 78, 769 P. T. Jonas, 173 III. 317, 663, 927 P. V. Jones, 53 Cal. 58, 900 P. V. Jones, 123 Cal. 65, 245 P. V. Jones, 24 Mich. 215, 232, 236 P. y. Jones, 46 Mich. 441, 105 P. V. Jones (Mich.), 82 N. W. 808, 202 P. V. Jones, 106 N. Y. 523, 261, 841 P. V. Jordan, 66 Cal. 10, 157, 159 P. V. Josselyn, 39 Cal. 393, 493 P. V. Juarez, 28 Cal. 380, 102 P. V. Judson, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 1, 296 TABLE OF CASES. Ixi IReferences are to Pages."] ■59 524 226 226 547 427 820 481 437, 451, 459 249 P. v. Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, 531, 536 P. V. Kalunkl (Mich.), 81 N. W. 923 P. V. kaminsky, 73 Mich. 637, P. V. Kane, 131 N. Y. 113, P. V. Kane, 142 N. Y. 366, P. T. Kane, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. T.) 15, P. V. Kearny, 110 N. Y. 188, 549, 552 P. V. Keefer, 65 Cal. 232. 673, 860 P. V. Keefer, 103 Mich. 83, 524, 527 P. V. Keenan, 13 Cal. 581, 750 P. V. Kehoe, 123 Cal. 224, 545, 547, 550 P. V. KeUey, 79 Mich. 320, 890 P. V. Kelly, 38 Cal. 145, P. V. Kelly, 47 Cal. 125, P. V. Kelly, 187 III. 333, P. T. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74, P. V. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410, P. V. Kendall, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 399, 163 P. V. Kennedy, 58 Mich. 372, 888 P. V. Kennedy, 32 N. Y. 141, 846 P. V. Kennedy, 159 N. Y. 346, 625 P. v. Kennedy, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 532, 216 P. V. Kennedy, 10 N. Y. Cr. 394, 37 P. V. Kenny, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 346,. 450 P. V. Kernaghan, 72 Cal. 609, 642 P. T. Ketehum, 103 Mich. 443, 555, 556 P. T. Keys, 1 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 275, 330 P. T. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 619 P. V. Kindleberger, 100 Cal. 367, 747 P. V. Kindra, 102 Mich. 148, 41 P. V. King, 125 Cal. 369, 264, 266 P. V. Kinney, 110 Mich. 97, 173 P. V. Klock, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 275, 223 302 P. v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112, 22- 23, 33, 43, 328 P. V. Knapp, 42 Mich. 267, 774 P. T. Knight (Cal.), 43 Pac. 6, 86, 88 P. V. Knowlton, 122 Cal. 357, 704 P. T. Koch. 44 N. Y. Supp. 387, 477 P. T. Kraft, 148 N. Y. 631, P. V. Kraft, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 474, P. T. Krummer, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 217, P. V. Krusick, 93 Cal. 74, P. V. Kuhn, 67 Mich. 463, P. V. Laird, 118 Cal. 291, P. V. Lake, 110 N. Y. 61, ' P. V. Lambert, 120 Cal. 170, P. V. Lampson, 70 Cal. 204, P. V. Lane, 101 Cal. 513, P. V. Langton, 67 Cal. 427^ 632. 865, 868 P. V. Laning, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1057, 476 P. V. Lapique, 120 Cal. 25, P. V. Lamed, 7 N. Y. 445, P. V. Lattimore, 86 Cal. 403, P. V. Laurence, 137 N. Y. 517, P. V. Laurence, 70 Hun (N. Y.) 80, P. V. Lawrence, 21 Cal. 868, P. V. Leach, Addis. 352, P. T. Lee Chuck, 78 Cal. 317, P. T. Lee Dick Lung, 129 Cal. 491, P. V. Lee Wah, 71 Cal, 80. P. v. Lee Yure Clong, 94 Cal. 379, P. V. Lem You, 97 Cal. 224, P. V. Lennox, 67 Cal. 113, P. V. Lennox, 106 Mich. 625, 164, 171, 174 P. V. Leonard, 106 Cal. 302, 152 P. V. Leong Quong, 60 Cal. 107, 117 P. V. Lesser, 76 Hun (N. Y.) 371, 133 P. V. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 242, 243, 245, 826 P. V. Lewis, 64 Cal. 401, 740, 875 33 23 251 544 679 264 531 83, 85, 88 727 623 144 206 243 102 132 34 279 900 818 482 902 410 777 P. T. Lewis, 117 Cal. 186, 626 P. V. Lewis, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 622, 819 P. V. Leyba, 74 Cal. 407, 51 P. V. Leyshon, 108 Cal. 440, 257 264 729 P. V. Lightner, 49 Cal. 226, ' 903, 905 P. T. Liiley, 43 Mich. 521, 46, 57, 904 P. V. Liphardt, 105 Mich. 80, 392 P. V. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 444, 890, 891, 932 P. V. Livingstone, 62 N. Y. Supp. 9, 171 P. V. Lockwood, 6 Cal. 205, 850 P. V. Loehfelm, 102 N. Y. 1, 346 P. V. Loewenthal, 93 111. 191, 645, 600 P. V. Long. 50 Mich. 249, 107 P. V. Longwell, 120 Mich. 311, 364 P. v. Lourintz, 114 Cal. 628, 79 P. V. Lovejoy, 55 N. Y. Supp. 543, 125 P. V. Luchettl, 119 Cal. 501, 132 P. V. Luders (Mich.), 85 N. W. 1081, 369 P. V. Lum Yit, 83 Cal. 130, 220 P. V. Lundin, 120 Cal. 308, 264 P. V. Luttermoser (Mich.), 81 N. W. 565, 163 P. V. Lynch, 29 Mich. 274, 86 P. V. Lyon, 99 N. Y. 210, 638, 873, 874 P. V. Lyons, 51 N. Y. Supp. 811, 210 P. T. Macard, 109 Mich. 623. 409, 424 P. V. Machado (Cal.), 63 Pac. 66, 113 P. V. Mahoney, 18 Cal. 180, 120, 121 P. V. Maine, 64 N. Y. Supp. 579, 909 P. V. Majors, 65 Cal. 138. 671 P. V. Mallette, 79 Mich. 600, 306 P. V. Malsch, 119 Mich. 112, 286 P. V. Manahan, 32 Cal. 68, 87 P. V. Manchego, 80 Cal. 306, 47 P. V. Markell, 45 N. Y. Supp. 904, 201 P. V. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 389, 390, 393 P. V. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 62, 689 P. V. Marshall, 112 Cal. 422, 21 P. V. Marston, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 257, 437 P. v. Martin, 102 Cal. 558, 158, 171 P. V. Martin, 116 Mich. 446, 103 P. T. Martinez, 66 Cal. 278, 35 P. V. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377, 646 P. V. Mason, 113 Cal. 76. 132 P. T. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 229, 316, 319, 324, 440. 794 P. V. Matson, 129 111. 598, 743, 923 P. V. Matthews, 126 Cal. 17, 862 P. V. Maunausau, 60 Mich. 15, 836 P. V. Mauritzen, 84 Cal. 37, 168 P. V. Maxwell, 118 Cal. 50, 412, 425 P. T. Mayes, 113 Cal. 618, 841 P. V. McArdle, 5 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 180, 65, 548 P. T. McArron, 121 Mich. 1, 17, 776, 872 P. T. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 622 P. T. McCarthy, 115 Cal. 255, 622 P. V. McCloskey, 5 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 57, 196, 712 P. V. McCord, 76 Mich. 200, 198, 619 P. V. McCrea, 32 Cal. 98, 822 P. V. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458, 726 P. V. McDaniels, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 198 216 P. V. McDonald (Cal.), 45 Pac. 1005, 220 P. V. McDonald, 43 N. Y. 61, 108, 109 P. V. McDonald, 49 Hun (N. T.) 67, 900 P. v. McDonell, 47 Cal. 134, 884 P. V. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 262, 667, 669 P. V. McDowell, 71 Cal. 194, 339 P. V. McDowell, 63 Mich. 229, 493 P. V. McElroy, 116 Cal. 583, 105 Ixii TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages."] p. V. McEIroy, 60 Hun (N. T.) 577, 220 P. V. McFadden, 65 Cal. 445, 896 P. T. McGarren, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 460, 101 P. V. McGllrer, 67 Cal. 55, 850 P. V. McGinty, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 62, 214 P. V. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62, 499 P. V. McGonegal, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 622, 496, 871 P. V. McGowan, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 386, , 216, 673, 900 P. V. McHale, 15 N. Y. Supp. 496, 131 P. V. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455, 588, 599 P. V. McKane, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 161, 430 433 P. V. McKenna, 81 Cal. 159, 17l', 596 P. T. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54, 143, 752 P. V. McLaughlin, 44 Cal. 435, 23 P. T. McLean, 68 Mich. 480, 686 P. V. McLeod, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 377, 625 P. T. McMakin, 8 Cal. 547, 47 P. V. McNamara, 94 Cal. 509, 797 I'. V. McNutt, 93 Cal. 658, 859 P. V. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 284, 327 P. V. McQuaid, 85 Mich. 123, 509, 511, 514 P. V. Meakim, 133 N. Y. 214, 402 P. V. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648, 120 P. V. Mendenhall. 119 Mich. 404, 510 P. V. Meservey, 76 Mich. 223, 890 P. V. Metropolitan Traction Co., 50 N. Y. Supp. 117, ■ 699 P. V. Meyer, 162 N. Y. 357, 811 P. V. Meyer, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1123, 287 P. V. Meyer, 8 N. Y. St. 256, 512 P. V. Millan, 106 Cal. 320, 175 P. V. Millard, 53 Mich. 63, 810 P. V. Miller, 12 Cal. 294, 711 P. T. Miller, 114 Cal. 10, 617 P. V. Miller, 122 Cal. 84, 341 P. V. Miller, 125 Cal. 44, 769 P. V. Miller, 91 Mich. 639, 50, 58 P. V. Miller, 96 Mich. 119, 76 P. V. Miller, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 371, 158 P. T. Miller, 29 N. Y. Supp. 305, 463 P. V. Miller, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 199, 171, 176 P. V. Miller, 4 Utah 410, 109 P. V. Miner, 144 111. 308, 275, 669, 914 P. V. Mitchel, 100 Cal. 328, 617 P. V. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411, 749 P. V. Mitchell. 66 Hun (N. Y.) 629, 572 P. V. Molineux, 58 N. Y. Supp. 155, 699 P. V. Monaghan, 102 Cal. 229, 740 P. V. Mondon, 4 N. Y. Cr. 112, 38 P. T. Monk, 8 Utah 35, 399 P. V. Montague, 71 Mich. 447, 508 P. V. Montarlal, 120 Cal. 691, 103 P. V. Montray, 166 111. 632, 756 P. V. Mooney, 127 Cal. 339, 239 P. V. Moore, 103 Cal. 508, 586 P. V. Moore, 39 Conn. 244, 403 P. V. Moore, 65 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 177, 718 P. V. Moore, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 84, 99, 161 P. V. Moore, 62 N. Y. Supp. 252, 885 P. V. Moore, 3 Wheel. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 82 52 P. V.' Moorman, 86 Mich. 433, 481 P. V. Moran, 48 Mich. 639, 886 P. V. Moran, 123 N. Y. 254, 105 P. V. Moran, 59 N. Y. Supp. 312, 175 P. V. Morehouse, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638. 49 P. T. Morphy, 100 Cal. 84, 165 P. V. Morrlsette, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 118, 664 P. V. Morrison, 1 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 625, 86 P. V. Mortimer, 46 Cal. 114, 659, 753 P. V. Morton, 4 Utah 407, 198 P. V. Moses. 140 N. Y. 214, 354 P. V. Muller, 96 N. Y. 408, 554 P. V. MuIIer, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 209, 555 P. V. Munn, 65 Cal. 211, 8, 38 P. V. Murat, 45 Cal. 281, 60 P. V. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137, 772, 787, 802 P. V. Murphy, 47 Cal. 103, 99 P. V. Murphy, 51 Cal. 376, 154 P. V. Murphy, 119 111. 160, 756 P. V. Murphy, 185 111. 627, 874, 894 P. V. Murphy, 188 111. 144, 893 P. V. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126, 493, 498, 49J» P. V. Murphy, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 462, 453 P. V. Murray, 8 Cal. 519, 202 P. V. Murray, 10 Cal. 309, 8^H P. V. Murray, 14 Cal. 159, 616 P. V. Murray, 52 Mich. 288, 799 P. V. Murry, 89 Mich. 276, 650 P. V. Myers, 20 Cal. 76, 237, 241 P. V. Myers, 70 Cal. 582, 397 P. T. Nash, 1 Idaho 206, 403 P. V. Naylor, 82 Cal. 607, 412 P. v. Neil, 91 Cal. 465, 593, 596 P. V. Neill, 74 HI. 68, 432, 484 P. V. Nelson, 56 Cal. 77, 216, 219 P. V. Nelson, 58 Cal. 104, 204 P. V. Nelson, 153 N. Y. 90, 545, 546 P. V. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 626 P. T. Newman, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 296, 787 839 p. V. Neyce, 86 Cal. 393, ' 152 P. V. Nicolsi (Cal.), 34 Pac. 824, 123 P. V. Nino, 149 N. Y. 317, 621, 779 P. V. Nixon, 40 III. 30, 518 P. V. Nixon, 45 111. 353, 519 P. V. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137, 575, 576, 619 P. V. Nolte, 44 N. Y. Supp. 443, 426 P. V. Noonan, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 578, 209 P. V. Noregea, 48 Cal. 123, 121 P. T. Northey, 77 Cal. 618, 391, 396 P. V. Norton, 4 Utah 407, 208 P. V. Nugent, 4 Cal. 341, 56 P. V. Ny Sam Chung, 94 Cal. 304, 678 P. V. O'Brien, 92 Mich. 17, 817 P. V. O'Connell, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 436. 624 P. V. Ogle, 104 N. Y. 511, 800 P. v. Ogle, 4 N. Y. Cr. 349, 821 P. V. O'Hara, 51 Hun (N. Y.) 640, 220 P. V. Olcott. 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 301, 316, 322 P. V. Oldham, 111 Cal. 648, 155 219 327 P. V. Ollveria, 127 Cal. 376, ' '776 P. V. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431, 22, 23, 29, 497, 721, 788, 837 P. V. O'Loughlin, 3 Utah 133, 343, 765, 768, 796 P. V. Olsen, 80 Cal. 122, 317 P. V. Olsen, 6 Utah 284, 224 P. V. O'Nell, 47 Cal. 109, 461 P. V. O'Nell, 48 Cal. 258, 662 P. V. O'Nell, 109 N. Y. 251, 396, 810 P. V. O'Neill, 107 Mich. 556, 769 P. V. O'Neill, 112 N. Y. 355, 242 P. V. Oreutt, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 252 233 P. V. brr, 36 N. Y. Supp. 398, 552 P. V. Oscar, 105 Mich. 704, 164, 177 P. T. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481, 85 TABLE OF CASES. Iziii IReferences are to Pages.'] 402 763, 769, 773 461, 463 136, 146 263 487 824 756 809, 810 567 50 195) 327, 839 256 55 843 38, 809 Y.) 65 P. V. Otto, 70 Cal. 523, P. V. Owens, 123 Cal. 482, P. V. Owena, 8 Utah 20, P. V. Page, 116 Cal. 386, P. V. Page, 1 Idaho 189, P. V. Page, 56 x\. Y. Supp. 834, P. v. Palllster, 138 N. Y. 601, P. V. Palmer, 61 111. 255, P. V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, P. V. Pancake, 74 Ind. 15, P. V. Pape, 66 Cal. 366, P. V. Parker, 91 Cal. 91, P. V. Parker, 67 Mich. 222, P. V. Parker, 114 Mich. 442, P. T. Parker, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 130, P. V. Parks, 44 Cal. 105, P. V. Parmelee, 112 Mich. 291, P. V. Parshall, 6 Park. Cr. (N 129 P. V. Patterson, 102 Cal. 244, 507, 530, 533, 534 y. Patterson, 124 Cal. 102, 220 V. Payne, 6 Wash. 563, 133 Y. Peabody, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 473, 261, 262 V. Peacock, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 72, 247 V. Peacock, 5 Utah 240, 884 V. Pearl, 76 Mich. 207, 54 V. Pearson, 3 Scam. (111.) 270, 434, 452 v. Peck, 138 N. Y. 386, 401 T. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576, 169, 178 V. Pelton, 159 N. Y. 537, 487 V. Pelton, 55 N. Y. Supp. 815, 487 v. Pendleton, 79 Mich. 317, 313 314 T. Perdue, 49 Cal. 425, T. Perez, 87 Cal. 122, V. Perini, 94 Cal. 573, V. Perkins, 153 N. Y. 576, V. Perkins, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 91, 903 V. Petheram, 64 Mich. 252, 319, 330 V. Petrea, 92 N. Y. 135, y. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, . V. Phelan, 123 Cal. 551, T. Phelps. 133 N. Y. 267, V. PhlUlps, 118 Mich. 699, v. Phillips 42 N. Y. 200, T. Phlpps ..9 Cal. 333, V. Pichette, 111 Mich. 461, V. Pickler, 186 111. 64, T. Pico, 62 Cal. 50, V. Plgfott, 126 Cal. 509, V. Pinkerton, 79 Mich. 110, 538, 542 V. Pinkerton, 77 N. Y. 245, 923 V. Pinkerton, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 199 921 V. 'Plrfenbrink, 96 III. 68, 429, 448, 459, 929 T. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 62, 67, 80T V. Piatt, 67 Cal. 21, 659 V. Plyler, 126 Cal. 379, 767, 858 . V. Polhamus. 40 N. Y. Supp. 491, 376 V. Porter, 104 Cal. 415, 425, 426 V. Powell, 87 Cal. 348, 832 V. Powell, 63 N. Y. 88, 619 V. Prather, 120 Cal. 660, 120 . T. Pratt, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 300, 686 V. Price, 74 Mich 37, 365 v. Putnam, 129 Cal. 258, 909 V. Quanstrom, 93 Mich. 254, 517 V. Rae, 66 Cal. 423, 158 '. v. Raims, 20 Colo. 489, 372 T. Balschke, 83 Cal. 501, 131 896 896 106 180 693 519 882 494 250' 124 845 615 756 129, 835 125 P. V. Ramirez, 66 Cal. 533, 814 P. V. Rando, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 335, 125, 189 P. V. Randolph, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 213, 79 P. V. Ranged, 112 Cal. 669, 80, 92 P. V. Rathbun, 105 Mich. 699, 471 P. V. Rathbun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 534, 666 P. V. Ratz, 115 Cal. 132, 78 P. V. Raymond, 96 N. Y. 38, 874, 878 P. V. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290, 914 P. V. Reece, 3 Utah 72, 883 P. V. Reed, 70 Cal. 529, 180 P. V. Reed, 14 N. Y. Cr. 326, 295 P. V. Reilly, 53 Mich. 260, 889 P. T. Reilly, 63 N. Y. Supp. 18, 202 P. V. Resh, 107 Mich. 251, 615 P. V. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347, 385 P. V. Reynolds, 16 Cal. 128, 768 P. v. Reynolds, 71 Mich. 343, 157, 170 P. V. Ribolsi, 89 Cal. 492, 187 P. T. Rice, 128 N. Y. 649, 160 P. V. Rice, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 437, 433 P. V. Richards, 67 Cal. 412, 316, 319, 324 P. V. Richards, 1 Mich. 216, 323 P. V. Richards, 108 N. Y. 141, 196 P. V. Richmond, 29 Cal. 414, 112 P. V. Riley, 75 Cal. 98, 217, 218 P. V. Ringsted, 90 Mich. 371, 355 P. V. Ritchie, 12 Utah 180, 332 P. V. Rivello, 57 N. Y. Supp. 420, 189 P. V. Roberts, 6 Cal. 214, 696 P. V. Robertson, 67 Cal. 646, 13 P. V. Robinson, 86 Mich. 415, 209 P. T. Robinson, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 235, 694, 719 P. V. Robles, 34 Cal. 591, 115, 124 P. V. Robles, 117 CaJ. 681, 412, 421 P. V. Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525, 645 P. V. Rockwell, 39 Mich. 503, 14 P. T. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9, 544, 549 P. V. Rodley (Cal.), 63 Pac. 351, 426 P. V. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 21, 50, 51, 782 P. V. Rodundo, 44 Cal. 538, 857 P. V. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, 617, 813 P. V. Rogers, 47 N. Y. Supp. 893, 132 P. V. Roseile, 78 Cal. 86, 706 P V. Rosenberg, 138 N. Y. 410, 489 p: v. Ross, 85 Cal. 383, 679 P. V. Ross, 103 Cal. 425, 408, 409, 417, 420, 422 P. V. Rowe, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.J 253. 688 P. T. Royal, 53 Cal. 62, 553 P. V. Royal, 1 Scam. (111.) 557, 669 P. V. Royce, 106 Cal. 173, 146, 150 P. V. Rozelle, 78 Cal. 84, 638 P. T. Rugg, 98 N. Y. 537, 899 P. v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 582 P. V. Russell, 110 Mich. 46, 305, 540, 541 P. V. Sadler, 97 N. Y. 146, 306, 538 P. V. Sagazei, 59 N. Y. Supp. 701, 288 P. V. Salisbury, 37 N. Y. Supp. 420, 478 P. V. Salomon, 54 111. 41, 434 P. V. Salomon, 184 111. 490, 756 P. V. Salorse, 62 Cal. 139, 138, 139, 154 P. v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515, 571 572 796 P. V. Sanders, 114 Cal. 216, ' 26^, 264 P. V. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29, 30, 702, 856 P. V. Sargeant, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 139, 566 P. V. Saunders, 25 Mich. 119, 320, 330 Ixiv TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.'] V. Saunders, 29 Mich. 269, 302, 305, 537, 542 T. Saunders, 4 Park. Cp. (N. Y.) 196, 671 V. Savercool, 81 Cal. 650, 55 V. Saviers, 14 Cal. 29, 567 V. Scates, 3 Scam. (111.) 351, 736, 738, 750 V. Schatz, 15 N. T. Cr. 38, 709 V. Schildwatcher, 87 Hun (N. Y.) 363, 526 V. Schilling, 110 Mich. 412, 523 T. Schintz, 181 111. 574, 756 V. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 260, 674 v. Sehmitt, 106 Cal. 48, 865 V. Scholtz, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 617, 324 v. Schooley, 149 N. Y. 99, 839 V. Schottey, 116 Mich. 1, 354 v. Schuyler, 6 Cowen (N. Y.) 572, 109 t. Schwartz, 32 Cal. 160, 242 V. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 676, 36 V. Scott, 56 Mich. 154, 883 V. Scott, 153 N. Y. 40, 38 V. Scott, 10 Utah 217, 242 V. Scranton, 61 Mich. 244, 356 V. Scully, 5 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 142, 181 V. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 494 V. Sears, 119 Cal. 267, 210 V. Seeley, 117 Mich. 263, 141 V. Seeley, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 190, 62 V. Sellick, 4 N. Y. Cr. 329, 699 v. Sergeant, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 139, 302 y. Shaber, 32 Cal. 36, 203 V. Shall, 9 Cow. {N. Y.) 778, 248 T. Sharp, 53 Mich. 523, 261, 841 V. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 89, 396, 440 Shattuck, 6 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 33, 717 V. Shaunessy, 110 Cal. 598, 102 V. Shaw, 111 Cal. 171, 790 V. Shea, 125 Cal. 151, 87 V. Shea, 147 N. Y. 78, 690 T. Shea, 38 N. Y. Supp. 821, 885 V. Sheffield, 105 Mich. 117, 77 T. Shelters, 99 Mich. 333, 179 V. Sherman, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 298 135 T. 'Shirlock (N. Y.), 59 N. E. 830, 747 V. Shoonmaker, 117 Mich. 190, 80 T. Sickles, 59 Hnn (N. Y.) 342, 460 T. Simmons, 119 Cal. 1, 693 V. Simons, 60 Cal. 72, 867 V. SimoQsen, 107 Cal. 345, 810 V. Simpson, 50 Cal. 304, 231 y. Simpson, 48 Mich. 476, 24, 26, 27, 32 y. Skldmore, 123 Cal. 267. 171, 175 T. Skinner, 19 III. App. 332, 932 V. Skutt, 96 Mich. 440, 507, 530, 534 V. Slack, 15 Mich. 193, 511 V. Slater, 119 Cal. 620, 539 y. Slayton (Mich.), 82 N. W. 205, 629 y. Sllgh, 48 Mich. 54, 802 y. Smith, 103 Cal. 563, 250, 259 y. Smith, 106 Cal. 73, 41 y. Smith, 112 Cal. 333, 41 y. Smith, 17 111. App. 597, 619 y. Smith, 94 Mich. 644. 186 y. Smith, 106 Mich. 431, 58, 59 V. Smith (Mich.), 81 N. W. 107, 75 y. Smith, 104 N. Y. 493, 32 y. Smith, 162 N. Y. 520, 327 477 82 885 814 20S 366 V. Smith, 10 N. Y. Supp. 730, 319 321 y. Smith, 55 N. Y. Supp. 932, ' 244 y. Smith, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 329, 198 y. Smith, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 490, 169, 461 y. Snowberger, 113 Mich. 86, y. Snyder, 75 Cal. 323, y. Soap, 127 Cal. 408, y. Soto, 49 Cal. 67, y. Soto, 53 Cal. 415, V. Souie, 74 Mich. 250, y. Spencer, 69 Hun (N. Y.) 149i 395 y. Spriggs, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 603, 59 V. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 391 y. Squires, 49 Mich. 487, 549, 550 y. Stack, 58 N. Y. Supp. 691, 220 y. Stackhouse, 49 Mich. 76, 789 y. Standish, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) Ill, 598 y. Stanford, 64 Cal. 27, 113 y. Stanley, 47 Cal. 113, 327, 874, 875 y. Staples, 91 Cal. 23, 666 y. Stapleton, 18 Colo. 568, 429 435 439 y. Stapleton, 2 Idaho 49,' 197', 202 y. Stark, 136 N. Y. 538, 337, 33S V. Stark, 12 N. Y. Supp. 688, 338 y. Starr, 50 III. 52, 528 y. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 137, 199 y. St. Clair, 56 Cal. 406, 715 V. Stearns, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 413, 250, 256 y. Stephens, 79 Cal. 428, 673 y. Sternberg, 111 Cal. 11, 588, 861, 871 V. Stetson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 151, 168 y. Steyens, 109 N. Y. 159, 225 y. Stewart, 5 Mich. 243, 26S y. Stewart, 44 Mich. 484, 203 y. St. Louis, 5 Glim. (111.) 374, 349 y. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 1, y. Stock, 1 Idaho 218, y. Stock, 157 N. Y. 681, V. Stockham, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 462 833 926 424, 495 y. Stokes, 71 Cal. 263, 505 y. Stone, 16 Cal. 369, 107 y. Stone, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 41, 423 y. Stott, 4 N. Y. Cr. 306, 61 y. Stout, 144 N. Y. 699, 919 y. Stout, 81 Hun (N. Y.) 336, 919 V. Strait, 148 N. Y. 566, 834 y. Strassman, 112 Cal. 683, 425, 427 V. Strong, 30 Cal. 151. 846 y. Sudduth, 52 S. C. 488, 86 y. Sulliyan, 129 Cal. 557, 823, 909 y. Sully, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 164, 158, 159, 163, 167, 176, 178 V. Summers, 115 Mich. 537, 167, 175, 178, 318 y. Sumner, 53 N. Y. Supp. 817, 103 y. Supervisor, 67 N. Y. 109, 658 V. Sutherland, 41 N. Y. Supp. 181, 591 y. Suydam, 14 N. Y. Supp. 492, 131 y. Swalm, 80 Cal. 46, 109 y. Swan, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 9, 104 y. Sweeney, 133 N. Y. 609, 831 y. Sweetland, 77 Mich. 60, 814 y. Sweetman, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 358, 427 TABLE OF CASES. Ixv [References are to Pages.'i T. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. V. Swinford, 57 Cal. 86, 121 V. Symonds, 22 Cal. 348, 725 V. Tamsen, 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 212, 437, 459 T. Tamsen, 37 N. Y. Supp. 407, 451 V. Tamsen, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1047, 457 T. Tarbox, 115 Cal. 57, 92, 810 V. Taugher, 102 Mich. 598, 99 V. Taylor, 59 Cal. 640, V. Taylor, 2 Mich. 251, V. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638, V. Taylor, 110 Mich. 491, V. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, V. Teixeira, 123 Cal. 297, V. Ten Eyck, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 617, V. Terrill, 127 Cal. 99, V. Thacker, 108 Mich. 652, 755, 764, 769, 804 T. Thayer, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 595, 765 V. Thomas, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 169, 169, 461 V. Thompson, 4 Cal. 238, 727 V. Thompson, 28 Cal. 216, 117 T. Thompson, 122 Mich. 411, 37, 693 V. Thoms, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 28 232 209, 811 377 620, 622 49 453 260 262, T. Tlsdale, 57 Cal. 104, V. Todd, 77 Cal. 464, 261 659 256 V. Tomlinson, 35 Cal. 503, ■ 248, 258 T. Tomlinson, 66 Cal. 345, 704 V. Tomlinson, 102 Cal. 20, 103, 108 V. Tompkins, 121 Mich. 431, 59 V. Tompkins, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 238, 157, 165 T. Tower, 63 Hun (N. Y.) 624, 742 T. Town of Thornton, 186 III. 162, 371 V. Townsend, 120 Mich. 661, 59 V. Townsend, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 479, 617 v. Townsley, 39 Cal. 405, 116 V. Tracy, 121 Mich. 318, 209 v. TraTers, 88 Cal. 233, 858 V. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 226, 136, 139, 868 V. Tressa, 128 N. Y. 529, 882 V. Trim, 39 Cal. 75, 234 V. Tripicersky, 38 N. Y. Supp. 696, 527 V. Tryon, 4 Mich. 665, 148 V. Turnbull, 93 Cal. 630, 390, 395 V. Turner, 1 Cal. 143, 447, 756 V. Turner, 65 Cal. 540, 54 V. Turner, 113 Cal. 278, 259 V. Turner, 122 Cal. 679, 420 V. Tyler, 36 Cal. 522, 910 V. TJnderhill, 142 N. Y. 38, 247 V. Un Dong, 106 Cal. 83, 801 V. Drquidas, 96 Cal. 239, 884 V. D. S. (Ind. Ter.), 43 S. W. 858 124 V. Valencia, 43 Cal. 552, 707 V. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 256, 257, 707, 794 V. Van Alstyne, 144 N. Y. 361, 547 V. Van Buren, 136 N. Y. 252, 432 462 V. Van Dam, 107 Mich. 425, 209 831 V. Vanderbilt, 28 N. Y. 396, ' 349 V. Vane, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 78, 829 831 V. Van Ewan, 111 Cal. 144, 150i 151 V. Van Houten, 35 N. Y. Supp. 186, 685 V. Vann, 129 Cal. 118, 76 hughes' C. L. — V P. V. Van Sclever (Cal.), 42 Pac. 451,, 15* P. V. Van Wyck, 2 Calnes (N. Y.) 338, ■*BM' P. V. Van Zile, 73 H^in (N. Y.) 584y 498; P. V. Vasalo, 120 Csil. 168, 243- P. V. Verdegreen, 106 Cal. 211, 75- P. V. Vice, 21 Cal. 344, 215, 217 P. V. Vidal, 121 Cal. 221, 123- P. V. Volksdort, 112 111. 295, ^-;U P. V. Von Tiedeman, 120 Cal. 128, 410, OS P. V. Wade, 118 Cal. 672, 545, 550, 553 P. V. Wade, 13 N. Y. Cr. 425, 56» P. V. Wadsworth, 63 Mich. 500, 136, 137, 146 P. V. Wah Lee Mon, 13 N. Y. SiiW). 767, 6T P. V. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297, 157, 159, 177 V. Walbridgev 123 Gal, 273, 218 V. Walker, 38 Mich. 156, 618 V. Waimce, 109 Cal. 611,, 548, 54» V. Walsh, 15 N. Y. Supp. 17, 319> V. War, 20 Cal. 117, 874 V. Ward, 105 Cal. 335, 725 V. Ward, 110 Cal. 369^ 395 v. Ward, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 231, 811 V. Warden o( City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 649' v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337, 24T V. Warner, 5 Wend. fN. Y.) 271, 427' V. Warren, 130 Cai; 683, 113: V. Warren, 1 Park. Or. (N. Y.) 338, 670i 70S V. Wasservogle, 77 Cal. 173, 157, 160, 17S 510' 434, 464 168, 175 V. Wasson, 65 Cal. 538, 30> V. Watson, 129 111. 596, 75S V. Watson, 75 Mich. 582, 171, 319, 874 V. Wayman, 128 N. Y. 585, 872 V. Weaver, 108 Mich. 649, 27, 33, 865. V. Webb, 38 Cal. 267, 66» V. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73, 790, 840- V. Weed, 96 N. Y. 625, V. Weigley, 155 111. 491, V. Weir, 120 Cal. 279, V. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 299, 300, 560 V. Weithoff, 93 Mich. 631, 573 . V. Weithoff, 100 Mich. 393, 569- . V. Weldon, 111 N. Y. 569, t&T V. Wells, 103 Cal. 631, 426: V. Wells, 112 Mich. 648, 541 V. Welmer, 110 Mich. 248, 765- . V. Wentworth, 4 N. Y. Cr. 207, 514 . v. Wessel, 98 Cal. 352, 80 V. West, 106 N. Y. 293, 705 V. Westlake, 124 Cal. 452, 152, 86.'{ . V. Wheatley, 88 Cal. 114, 90» . V. Wheeler, 60 Cal. 581, 838 '. V. Wheeler, 73 Cal. 252, 401 '. V. Wheeler, 60 111. App. 351, 520 V. White, 34 Cal. 183, 252, 261, 666 . V. Whitely, 64 Cal. 211, 896 . V. Whitson, 74 111. 20, 664, 672 890, 892, 900, 907, 908, 926, 929 '. V. Whittemore, 102 Mich. 519, 272 '. V. Wieger, 100 Cal. 354, 161, 16-1 '. V. Wiggins, 28 Hun (N: Y.) 308, 128 . V. Wilbur, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 19, 703 . V. Wiley, 3. Hill (N. Y.) 194, 102 ' V. Wilkinson, 14 N. Y. Supp. 827, 131 Ixvi TABLE OP CASES. IReferences are to Pages.1 p. V. WiUard, 92 Cal. 482, 779 P. V. Wlllett, 102 N. Y. 251. 131 P. V. Willey, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 19, 408 P. V. Williams, 35 Cal. 673, 101 P. V. Williams, 43 Cal. 344, 859 P. V. Williams, 57 Cal. 108, 109 P. V. Williams, 59 Cal. 397, 586 P. V. Williams, 60 Cal. 1, 138 P. V. Williams, 118 Mich. 692, 49 P. v. Williams, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 278, 131 P. V. Williams, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 354, 414 P. V. Williamson, 13 III. 662, 915 P. T. Willis, 52 N. Y. Supp. 808, 698 P. V. Willis, 54 N. Y. Supp. 52, 392 P. T. Willson, 109 N. Y. 345, 771 P. V. Wilmarth, 156 N. Y. 566, 769, 770 P. V. Wilson, 49 Cal. 13, 622 P. V. Wilson, 119 Cal. 384, 586 P. v. Wilson, 64 111. 195, 428, 430, 435, 439 P. V. Wilson, 151 N. Y. 403, 122 P. V. Wilson, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 368, 435 P. V. Wilzig, 4 N. Y. Cr. 403, 319 P. v. Winant, 53 N. Y. Supp. 695, 699 P. v. Winner, 30 N. Y. Supp. 54, 174 P. V. Winslow, 39 Mich. 505, 163, 179 P. V. Winters, 93 Cal. 277, 210 P. v. Winters, 125 Cal. 325, 727 P. V. Wise, 163 N. Y. 440, 42 P. V. Wolven, 2 Edm. Cas. (N. Y.) 108, ■ 52 P. V. Wong Chong Suey, 110 Cal. 117, 132 P. V. Wong Sam, 117 Cal. 29, 253 P. V. Wood, 99 Mich. 620, 205. 207, 209, 755 V. v. Wood, 126 N. Y. 249, 834 P. v. Wood, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 22, 106 P. V. Woodward, 45 Cal. 293, 637 P. V. Woodward, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 57, 100 V. V. Woody, 45 Cal. 289, 617 P. V. Wooley, 44 Cal. 494, 240 P. V. Worden, 113 Cal. 569, 861 P. V. Worden Grocer Co., 118 Mich. e04,. 475, 477 P. V. Wright, 93 Cal. 564, 95, 96, 97 P. V. Wright, 70 111. 389, 645 P. v. Wright, 9 Mich. 362, 301 P. V. Wright, 38 Mich. 744, 217 P. V. Wright, 43 N. Y. Supp. 290, 477 P. V. Wright, 11 Utah 41, 123 P. T. Wynn, 12 N. Y: Supp. 379, 572 P. V. Yoakum, 53 Cal. 567, 736 P, T. Young, 65 Cal. 225, 196 V. V. Young, 102 Cal. 411, 618 P. T. Young, 108 Cal. 8, 822 P. V. Young, 38 111. 490, 658 P. V. Young, 72 111. 411, 352 P. V. Youngs, 122 Mich. 292, 197 P. V. Zane, 105 111. 662, 737 P. V. Zimmerman, 4 N. Y. Cr. 272, 909 Peoples V. Com., 87 Ky. 487, 24, 500 Peoples V. McKee, 92 HI. 397, 779, 787 Peoples V. S., 6 Blackt. (Ind.) 95, 252, 256 Peorfa, etc., R. Co. y. Bryant, 15 111. 438. 438, 796 Peppin V. S., 77 Ala. 81, 224 Percival v. S., 45 Neb. 741, 436, 453, 463 Percy, Matter of, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 530, 447 Perdue v. Com., 96 Pa. St. 311, 417 Peri V. P., 65 111. 25, 2, 675, 865 Perkins, Ex parte, 29 Fed. 908, 459 Perkins, Ex parte, 2 Cal. 424, 932 Perkins v. S., 92 Ala. 66, 695 Perkins v. S., 67 Ind. 276, 163 Perkins v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 341, -568 Perrln v. Com., 87 Va. 554, 104 Perrow v. S., 67 Miss. 365, 472, 473 Perry v. P., 14 HI. 496, 58, 632 Perry v. S., 102 Ga. 365, 2, 22 Perry y. S.. 41 Tex. 485, 123 Perry v. S., 4 Tex. App. 566, 849 Perry v. S., 22 Tex. App. 19, 138 Perry v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 618, 762 Perry v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 566, 628 Perry County v. Jefferson Co., 94 III. 214, 655 Perteet v. P., 65 111. 230, 734 Perteet v. P., 70 111. 177, 665, 730, 737, 746, 750, 835, 915 Perugi T. S., 104 Wis. 230, 3 Peters v. S., 100 Ala. 10, 113 Peters v. S., 4 S. & M. (Miss.) 31, 815 Peters v. S., 96 Tenn. 682, 274 Peters v. U. S., 2 Okla. 116, 410, 412 Peterson v. S., 74 Ala. 34, 423 Peterson v. S., 14 Tex. App. 162, 78 Peterson v. S., 25 Tex. App. 70, 266 Petrie, Ex parte, 40 HI. 433, 450 Petrie v. P., 40 111. 343, 450 Pettibone v. U. S., 148 V. S. 197, 315, 317, 323, 407, 702 Pettit V. P., 24 Colo. 517, 377 Pettit T. S., 135 Ind. 393, 726, 727, 732 Petty T. P., 118 111. 154, 757 Pflueger v. S., 46 Neb. 493, 761 Pharmaceutical Soc. v. Wheedon, L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 683, 483 Phelips v. Barrett, 4 Price 23, 446 Phelps V. Com., 17 Ky. L. 706, 804, 834 Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. (U. S'.) 161, 745, 747 Phelps V. P., 55 111. 337, 108, 144 Phelps V. P., 72 N. Y. 334, 100, 106 Phelps T. S., 109 Ga. 115. 110 Phenix v. Castner, 108 111. 207, 792 Philamalee v. S., 58 Neb. 320, 857 Phillips, Ex parte, 33 Tex. Cr. 122, 223, 229 Phillips V. Com., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 588 201 Phillips V. P., 55 111. 433, 674, 675 Phillips V. P., 88 111. 160, 671, 907 Phillips V. S., 62 Ark. 119, 39 Phillips V. S., 29 Ga. 105, 242 Phillips V. S., 85 Tenn. 551, 111, 118 Phillips V. S., 6 Tex. App. 364, 263 Phillips V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 119; 132 Phillips V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 557" 116 Phillips V. Welch, 11 Nev. 187, 430 Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nct. 158, 461, 463 Philpot V. Com., 86 Ky. 595, 55 Phlpps V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 216, 729 Pickerel v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 120, 214 Pickett V. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177, 445 Pickett V. S., 60 Ala. 77, 202 Piekler v. S., 18 Ind. 266, 520 Pierce, In re, 44 Wis. 411, 434, 460, 462 Pierce t. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) 6, 371 TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii [References are to Pages.'\ Pierce v. P., 81 111. 101, 182 Pierce v. S., 109 Ind. 535, 355 Pierce v. S., 54 Kan. 519, 458 Pierce v. S., 13 N. H. 536, 655 Pierce t. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 604, 255, 266 Pierce v. U. S., 160 V. S. 355, 813 Pierson v. P., 79 N. Y. 424, 499 Pigg V. S., 145 Ind. 650, 797 Pigman v. S., 14 Ohio 555, 250, 618 Pike V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 613, 367, 381 Piland v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 1007, 131 Pilger V. Com., 112 Pa. St. 220, 848 Pines V. S., 50 Ala. 153, 204 Pinkerton t. Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 684, 686 Pinney v. S. (Ind.), 59 N. E. 383, 174, 175 Pinny v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 838 Pinson T. S., 23 Tex. 579, 50 Piper V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 1118, 296 Pipes V. S. 26 Tex. App. 318, 411, 414 Pirtle T. S., 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 663, 868 Pltner v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 268, 382 Pitt V. Davison, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 97, 449, 450, 451, 453 Pittman v. Hagins, 91 Ga. 107, 449 Pittman v. S., 14 Tex. App. 576, 131 Pittman v. S. (Tex. App.), 17 S. W. 623 132 Pitts V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 667, 258 Pitts V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 30 S. W. 359, 123 Plake V. S., 121 Ind. 433, 620, 622 Planck V. Bishop, 26 Neb: 589, 527 Planing Mill Co. v. Chicago, 56 111. 304, 915 Pledger v. S., 77 Ga. 242, 441 Plumb T. Christie, 103 Ga. 686, 373 Plumbly V. Com., 2 Mete. (Mass.) 413 828 875 Plummer v. P., 74 111. 361, 645, 764^ 777 Plummer v. S., 135 Ind. 308, 311 Plummer v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 202, 425 Poe T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 493, 383 Poertner v. Eussel, 33 Wis. 193, 430, 432, 457 Poindexter v. Com., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 766, 762 Pointer v. TJ. S., 151 D. S. 419, 824, 893 Polin V. S., 14 Neb. 540, 730 Polinsky v. P., 73 N. Y. 65, 479 Polite V. S., 78 Ga. 347, 728 Polk V. S., 62 Ala. 237, 311 Polk V. S., 40 Ark. 482, 544, 545, 548, 549, 550 Polk V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 495, 26 Polk V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 668, 256 Pollard T. P., 69 111. 153, 417, 423 Pollock T. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 29, 296 Polly T. Com., 15 Ky. L. 502, 33 Polly T. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 410, 572 Poison V. S., 137 Ind. 519, 76, 83, 85, 89, 90 Pomeroy v. S., 94 Ind. 96, 75 Pond V. P., 8 Mich. 150, 13 Pool T. S., 87 Ga. 526, 901 Poole T. P., 24 Colo. 510, 287 Pooler V. S., 97 Wis. 627, 197 Porath V. S., 90 Wis. 527, 89, 530, 533, 536 Porter v. Day, 71 Wis. 296, 566 Porter v. P., 158 III. 374, 79, 80, 905 Porter v. S., 26 Fla. 56, 115 Porter v. S., 51 Ga. 300, 562 Porter v. S., 158 111. 372, 79 Porter v. S., 23 Tex. App. 295, 158 Porter v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 50 S. W. 380, 210 Porterfleid v. Com., 91 Va. 801, 205 Portis V. S., 27 Ark. 360, 560, 562 Portwood V. S., 29 Tex. 47, 204 Poteete v. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 270, 25, 28 Potts v. Potts, 68 Mich. 492, 431, 458 Pounds V. U. S., 171 U. S. 35, 609 Powe V. S., 48 N. J. L. 34,' 493, 495 Powell, Ex parte, 20 Fla. 806, 921, 922 Powell V. Com., 114 Pa. St. 265, 474, 475, 645, 646, 660 Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 474, 475 Powell V. S., 19 Ala. 581, 37 Powell V. S., 88 Ga. 32, 113 Powell V. S., 101 Ga. 9, 12 Powell V. S., 11 Tex. App. 401, 123 Powell V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 230, 48 Powell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 286, 313 Powell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 504, 506 Powell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 94, 676 Powell V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 668, 675, 912 Power V. Athens, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 165, 442, 462 Power V. S., 17 Colo. 178, 734, 809 Powers, In re, 25 Vt. 261, 685 Powers V. S., 44 Ga. 209, 533 Powers V. S.,' 80 Ind. 77, 729 Powers V. S., 87 Ind. 97, 250, 753, 851 Powers V. S., 74 Miss. 777, 30 Poyer v. Village of Des Plalnes, 18 111. App. 225, 491 Poyner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 516, 536 Prater v. S., 107 Ala. 26, 243, 779 Prather v. Com., 85 Va. 122, 210 Prather v. P., 85 111. 36, 371 Prather v. U. S., 9 App. D. C. 82, 475 Pratt V. S., 51 Ark. 167, 76 Pratt V. S., 19 Ohio St. 277, 77 Pratt V. S., 35 Ohio St. 514, 116 Prehm v. S., 22 Neb. 673, 177 Preisker v. P., 47 III. 383, 77 Prell V. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426, 722 Prendergast v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 850, . 574 Prescott V. Chicago, 60 111. 121, 645 Prescott V. S. (Miss.), 18 So. 683, 209 Presley v. S., 24 Tex. App. 494, 840 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 312 Presser v. P., 98 III. 406, 753 Pressley v. S., Ill Ala. 34, 194, 204 Pressley v. S., 19 Ga. 192, 750 Preston v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 72, 264 Preston v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 881, 266, 862 Preuit V. S., 5 Neb. 377, 737, 896 Prewett v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 879, 884 Prewitt V. Lambert, 19 Colo. 7, 766 Price V. Com., 15 Ky. L. 837, 196 Price V. P., 109 111. 113, 208, 619, 643, 817 Price V. P., 131 111. 232, 11, 625, 727, 728, 731, 737 Price V. S., 96 Ala. 5, 299, 301, 305 Price V. S., 72 Ga. 441, 32 Price V. S., 61 N. J. L. 500, 54T Price V. S., 41 Tex. 215, 99 Price V. S., 18 Tex. App. 474, 10 Price V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 428, 483 Price V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 596, 153 Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pdges.'i Price V. U. S., 165 U. S. 311, 559 Priehard v. P., 149 111. 54, 513, 701 Priest V. S., 10 Neb. 393, 720 Priest v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 611, 59 Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 625, 667 Prince, Ex parte, 27 Fla. 196, 13 4 Prince v. Gundaway, 157 Mass. 417, 523 Prince t. S., 44 Tex. 480, 891 Prindeville t. P., 42 111. 219, 76 Prindle v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 551, 585 Pritchett v. Cox, 154 Ind. 108, 929 Pritehett v. S., 22 Ala. 39, 14 Pritchett V. S., 92 Ga. 65, ^ 861 Pritchett t. S., 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 285, 101 Probasco v. Probasco, 30 N. J. Eq. 61, 452 Proctor V. Com., 14 Ky. L. 248, 85 Prohib. Amend. Cases, 24 Kan. 700, 373 Proper v. S., 85 Wis. 615, 84, 85, 507 Prospect Brewing Co.'s Petition, 127 Pa. St. 523, 371 Pruett V. S., 102 Ga. 688, 71 Pullen v. P., 1 Doug. (Mich.) 48, 783 Pullman v. S., 78 Ala. 31, 134, 135, 139, 140 Purceliy v. S., 29 Tex. App. 1, 119 Purdy V. P., 140 111. 49, 338, 846, 869 Purefoy v. P., 65 111. App. 167, 354 Purvisv. S., 71 Miss. 706, 736 Puryear v. Com., 83 Va. 54, 26, 32 Q 354 Quarles v. S., 55 Arls. 10, Quarles t. 8., 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 561, 563 Quartemas v. S., 48 Ala. 269, 501 Queen v. Ashwell, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. . 190, 104 Queen t. Baker, L. R. 1 Q. B. 797, 409 Queen v. Berry, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 447, 624 Queen v. Brittleton, L. E. 12 Q. B. D. 266, 109 Queen v. Cooper, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 19 818 Queen v. Cooper, L. B. 2 Q. B. D. 510, 161 Queen v. Cox, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 153, 755 Queen v. De Banks, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 29, 107 Queen v. Dudley, L. E. 14 Q. B. D. 273, 5 Queen v. Flattery, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 410, 75 Queen v. Flowers, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 643, 104 Queen v. Poulkes, 2 Cas. Res. 150, 146 Queen v. Gumble, 2 C. C. R. 1, 102 Queen v. Hollls, L. E. 12 Q. B. D. 25, 103 Queen v. Holmes, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 23, 181, 666 Queen v. Kenny, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 307, 109 Queen v. Leblanc, 8 Leg. News 114, 398 Queen v. Mallory, L. R. 13 Q. B. p. 33, 784 Queen v. Maurer, L. R. 10 Q. B. D. 513, 931 Queen v. Negus, 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 34, 141 Queen v. Nichoiis, 2 Cox C. C. 182, 854 Queen v. Perry, 2 Cox C. C. 223, 493 Queen v. Eichards, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 311, ^ Queen v. Riley, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 309, ^ 247 Queen v. Rogers, L. R. 3 TJ. B. D. 28, 156 Queen v. Russett, L. R. (1892) 2 Q. B. 312, 103, 158 Queen r. Saunders, L. R. 1 Q. B. D 15 555 Queen v. Thompson, L. R. 2 Q. B. D 12 812 Queen v. Tolson, L. B. 23 Q. B. D. 168, 512 Queen v. Waudby, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 482, 638 Quick V. Com., 17 Ky. L. 938, 179 Quinn v. Halbert, 52 Vt. 365, 883 Quinn T. P., 123 111. 346, 117, 135, 139, 910 Quinn V. S., 35 Ind. 487, 567, 596 R Rabb V. S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 1000, 304 Rabby v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 37 S. W. 741, 56? Radford v. Com., 10 Ky. L. 877, 729 Radford v. S., 35 Tex. 15, 127 Radford v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 520, 27 Rafe V. S., 20 Ga. 64, 760 EafEerty v. P., 66 111. 124, 618 RaCCerty v. P., 69 111. 116; ' 682 Rafferty v. P., 72 111. 42, 688. 734, 816, 835, 886, 910 Rafferty v. S., 91 Tenn. 655, 178 Raggio V. P.. 135 111. 533, 745, 845 Ragland v. S., 125 Ala. 12, 803, 834 Railing v. Com., 110 Pa. St. 100, 25, 28 Railroad Co. v. Com., 90 Pa. St. 300, 346 Raines v. S. (Pla.), 28 So. 57, 130, 745, 911 Rainey v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 72, 696 Rainey y. S., 94 Ga. 599, 168 Rainforth v. P., 61 111. 367, 168 Raker v. S., 50 Neb. 202,' 333 Ramey v. S., 127 Ind. 243, 524 Ramey v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 200, 539 Ramo V. Wilson, 24 Vt. 517, 522 Ramsey v. P., 142 111. 380, 647 Ramsey v. S., 91 Ala. 29, 308, 309 Ramsey v. S., 92 Ga. 53, 52 Rand v. Com., 9 Gratt. (Va.) 738, 660, 875 Randall v. S., 132 Ind. 539, 114, 790 Randall v. S., 53 N. J. L. 488, 114, 468, 469 Randolph v. S., 100 Ala. 139, 206 Randolph v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 591, 131 Eandon, Ex parte, 12 Tex. App. 145, 690 Ranirez v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 278, 568 Rank v. P., 80 III. App. 40, 272 Eansbottom v. S., 144 Ind. 250, 92, 726, 735 Ransom v. S., 22 Conn. 153, 104 Ransom v. S., 49 Ark. 176, 741 Ransom v. S., 26 Fla. 364, 562, 572 Ransome t. S., 91 Tenn. 716, 573 Rapier, In re, 143 U. S. 133, 576 Rasch V. S., 89 Md. 755, 477, 478, 717 Eatekin v. S., 26 Ohio St. 420, 196 Rater v, S„ 49 Ind, 507, 362 TABLE OF CASES. Izix [References are to Pages.'] Kath V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 142, 392, 393 Jlattray v. S., 61 Miss. 377, 336 Bauguth V. P., 186 III. 93, 130, 145, 153 Jlauschkolb T. S., 46 Neb. 658, 795 Kawles v. S., 56 Ind. 433, 526 Sawlings v. P., 102 III. 477, 518, 529 Kawlins v. S., 40 Fla- 155, 36 JKawson v. Bawson, 35 111. App. 507, 463 Bay V. Bell, 24 111. 451, 790 Bay V. P., 6 Colo. 231, 742 Bay V. S.. 50 Ala. 172, 567 Bay V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 77, 123 Bead v. Com., 22 Gratt. (Va.) 924, 884, 886 Beagan v. U. S., 157 U. S. 301, 607 Beam v. S., 52 Neb. 727, 186 Eeavis v. S., 6 Wyo. 240, 425 Bed y. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 414, 35 Bedd V. S., 68 Ala. 492, 835 Eedd V. S., 99 Ga. 210, 33, 831 Keddick v; S., 35 Tex. Cr. 463, 83 Beddick v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 993 8 42 Eedditt v. S., 17 Tex. 610, '564 Eedman v. S., 33 Ala. 428, 561 Bedman v. S., 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 429, 118 Bedus V. S., 82 Ala. 53, 310 Beed v. Com., 7 Bush (Ky.) 641, 116 fieed V. Com., 22 Gratt. (Va.) 924, 901 Beed t. Com., 98 Va. 817, 826 Beed V. S., 54 Ark. 621, 123 Beed v. S., 8 Ind. 200, 17 Beed v. S., 28 Ind. 396, 253 JReed v. S., 15 Ohio 217, 155 Beed v. S., 14 Tex. App. 662, 198, 203 Beed v. S., 16 Tex. App. 586, 140, 154 Beed v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 1085, 301 Beed v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 1093 368 Beed v! Thompson, 88 III. 245, 901 Beese, In re, 98 Fed. 984, 926 Beese v. Atlanta, 63 Ga. 344, 370 Beese v. S., 90 Ala. 626, 849 Beeves v. S., 95 Ala. 31, 152 Beeves v. S., 105 Ala. 120, 575 Beeves v. S., 29 Fla. 527, 720 Beeves v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 147, 563 Eeggel, Ex parte, 114 D. S. 642, 917, 920, 921 Beg. V. Aden, 12 Cox C. C. 512, 107, 139 Beg. V. Bailey, 12 Cox C. C. 56, 141 Beg. V. Ball, 1 C. & M. 249, 164 Beg. V. Barrett, 12 Cox C. C. 498, 75 Beg. V. Bernard, 1 F. & F. 240, 317 Beg. V. Best, 9 C. & P. 368, 467 Beg. V. Betts. Bell 90, 109 Beg. V. Bird, 17 Cox C. C. 387, 426 Beg. V. Bishop, Car. & M. 302, 415 Beg. V. Brackett, 4 Cox C. C. 272, 106 Beg. V. Bradlaugh, L. E. 2 Q. B. D. 569, Beg. y, , Beg. V, ' Beg. Beg. Heg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. 336 Bull, 13 Cox C. C. 608, 160 V. Bunn, 12 Cox C. C. 316, 321 V. Burnsides, Bell 282, 162 V. Burton, 16 Cox C. C. 62, 177 V. Butcher, Bell 6, 160 V. Carlile, 1 Cox C. C. 229, 554 V. Caton. 12 Cox C. C. 624, 8, 15 V. Chappie, 17 Cox C. C. 455, 269 V. Clark, 6 Cox C. C. 210, 875 V. Closs, Dears. & B. 460, 158 V. Cobden, 3 F. & F. 833, 825 V. Coggins, 12 Cox C. C. 517, 185, 189 V. Conde, 10 Cox C. C. 547. 9 V. Coney, L. E. 8 Q. B. D. 535, 48 Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. T. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. 691, Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. 42, Beg. v. p. 3, Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Reg. V. 537, Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Reg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. V. Beg. y. Beg. v. Beg. y. Beg. V. Beg. y. Reg. v. Beg. v. Reg. V. Reg. V. B. D Reg. V. Reg. V. Reg. V. Reg. V. Reg. y. Reg. V. Reg. V. Reg. y. Cooper, 8 Q. B. 533, Cosser, 13 Cox C. C. 187, Cotton, 12 Cox C. C. 400, Cracknell, 10 Cox C. C. 408, Creed, 1 C. & K. 63, Cullum, 12 Cox C. C. 469. Davis, 11 Cox C. C. 181, 160, De Castro, 12 Cox C. C. 371, Downes, 13 Cox C. C. Ill, Bdgell, 11 Cox C. C. 132, Foster, L. B. 2 Q. B. D. 301, Fox, 10 Cox C. C. 502, Francis, 12 Cox C. C. 612, Frost, 9 C. & P. 147, George, 11 Cox C. C. 41, Gibbon, L. & C. 109, Gibbons, 9 Cox C. C. 105, Gibson, 16 Cox C. C. 181, Giles, 10 Cox C. C. 44, Goldsmith, 12 Cox C. C. 479, Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 823, Goodall, 2 Cox C. C. 41, 494, Goodchlld, 2 C. & K. 293, Greathead, 38 L. T. N. S. Guelder, 8 Cox C. C. 372, Hall, 13 Cox C. C. 49, Harris, 6 Cox C. C. 363, Hastie, Leigh & C. 269, Hazelton, 13 Cox C. C. 1, Hennah, 13 Cox C. C. 548, Hennessy, 35 U. C. Q. B. 603, Hensler, 11 Cox C. C. 570, 164, Heseltine, 12 Cox C. C; 404, Hicklin, L. E. 3 Q. B. 369, Hind, 8' Cox C. C. 300, Hoare, 1 F. & F. 647, Hodgson, 3 C. & P. 422, Holbrook, L. B. 4 Q. B. D. Holliday, Kerr Hom., sec. 2 Hollis, 12 Cox C. C. 463, Holloway, 18 Cox C. C. 631, Holmes, 12 Cox C. C. 137, Hopkins, 8 C. & P. 591, Howarth, 33 U. C. Q. B. Howell, 9 C. & P. 437, Inder, 2 C. & K. 635, Isaacs, L. & C. 220, James, 12 Cox C. C. 127, Jarman, 14 Cox C. C. Ill, 105, Jessup, 7 Cox C. C. 399, Johnson, 2 Moo. C. C. 254, Jones, 12 Cox C. C. 628, rang, 7 Q. B. 782, Kinglake, 11 Cox C. C. 499, Knock, 14 Cox C. C. 1, Lamer, 14 Cox C. C. 497, Lavey, 3 C. & B. 26. Lawrence, 36 L. T. N. S. 404 Layton. 4 Cox C. C. 149, Layton, 1 Sa!k. 353, Leng, 1 F. & F. 77, Lillyman, L. B. (1896) 2 Q. . 167. Lince, 12 Cox C. C. 451, Lovett, 11 Cox C. C. 602, Martin, 5 Cox C. C. 356, Martin, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 34, Matthews, 12 Cox C. C. 489, May, 10 Cox C. C. 448, Mayers, 12 Cox C. C. 311, Mayle, 11 Cox C. C. 150, 140 333 130 40 215 13d 135 162 435 619 232 162 827 826 795 499 411 410 818 169 186 331 495 495 164 152 141 135 136 160 493 112 168 826 554 25 140 144 333 47 498 107 88 810 356 328 252 493 177 160 167 166 8 324 795 628 170 410 169 805 879 828 S3 172 466 436 160 99 499 74 141 Ixx TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.J Reg. V. McDonald, Leigh & C. 85, 144 Keg. V. Mearry, 9 Cox C. C. 231, 901 Reg. V. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. 79, 319 Reg. V. Middleton, 12 Cox C. C. 260, 104 Keg. v. Mills, 7 Cox C. C. 263, 168 Reg. V. Moore, 13 Cox C. C. 544, 512 Reg. V. Morris, 2 Cor C. C. 489, 499 Reg. V. Morris, 10 Cox C. C. 480, 671 Reg. V. Morris, 9 C. & P. 349, 100 138 219 Keg. V. Morton, 12 Cox C. C. 456, ' 254 Reg. V. Munslow, 18 Cox C. C. 112, 337 Keg. V. Murdoek, 5 Cox C. C. 360, 156 Reg. V. Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297, 326 Reg. V. Nattrass, 15 Cox 73, 231 Reg. V. Negus, 12 Cox C. C. 492, 140 Reg. V. Norman, 1 C. & M. 501, 144 Reg. V. Onslow, 12 Cox C. C. 358, 435 Reg. V. Oxley, 3 C. & K. 317, 420 Reg. V. Paty, 2 Salk. 503, 429 Reg. V. Portugal, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 487, 140 Reg. V. Prince, 1 Am. C. R. 1, 63 Reg. V. Prltchard, 7 C. & P. 303, 024 Reg. V. Proud, 9 Cox C. C. 22, 152 Reg. V. Radcliffe, 12 Cox C. C. 474, 158 Reg. V. Reeve, 12 Cox C. C. 179, 812, 813 Reg. V. Reld, 2 Den. C. C. 94, 673 Reg. T. Rhodes, 68 L. J. Q. B. 83, 178 Reg. V. Kldgway, 3 F. & F. 838, 162 Reg. V. Ritson, L. R. 1 C. C. 200, 247 Reg. T. Robinson, 10 Cox C. C. 107, 261 Reg. V. Koden, 12 Cox C. C. 630, 40 Reg. V Kowton, 10 Cox C. C. 25, 831 Reg. V. Satchwell, 12 Cox C. C. 449, 235 Reg. V. Sharpe, Dears. &.B. 160, 580 Reg. V. Silverlock, L. R. (1894) 2 Q. B. D. 766, 175 Reg. V. Silverlock, 18 Cox C. C. 104, 162 Reg. V. Slowly, 12 Cox C. C. 269, 103 Reg. V. Smith, 34 U. C. Q. B. 552, 673 Reg. V. Smith, 1 C. & K. 423, 141 Reg. V. Starr, 40 U. C. Q. B. 268, 122 Reg. V. Steele, 12 Cox C. C. 168, 26 Reg. V. Taffs, 4 Cox C. C. 169, 143 Reg. V. Taylor, 13 Cox C. C. 77, 838 Reg. V. Thoman, 12 Cox C. C. 54, 227 Keg. V. Thomas, 6 Cox C. C. 403, 140 Reg. V. Tite, Leigh & C. 29, 141 Reg. V. Titley, 14 Cox C. C. 502, 495 Reg. V. Turner, 11 Cox C. C. 557, 141 Reg. V. Tyler, 8 C. & P. 616, 848 Reg. V. Vann, 2 Den. C. C. 325, 579 Reg. V. Vickery, 12 Q. B. 478, 407 Keg. V. Virrier, 12 A. & B. 317. 424 Reg. 7. Vodden, 6 Cox C. C. 226, 901 Reg. V. Vreones, L. K. (1891) 1 Q. B. D. 360, » 412 Reg. V. Walker, 8 Cox C. C. 1, 141 Reg. V. Waller, 10 Cox C. C. 360, 108 Beg. V. Warren, 16 Ont. 590, 301 Reg. V. Watts. 2 Den. C. C. 14, 144 Keg. V. Whitchurch, L. K. 24 Q. B. D. 420. 316, 495 Beg. V. White, 8 C. & P. 742, 141 Reg. V. Wollaston, 12 Cox C. C. 180, 585 Reg. V. Wolstenholme, 11 Cox C. C. 313, 146 Keg. V. Wood, 3 Cox C. C. 453, 104 Reg. V. Woodhurst, 12 Cox C. C. 443, 75 Keg. V. Woodman, 14 Cox C. C. 179, 166 Reg. v. Wycheriey, 8 C. & P. 262, 493 Register v. S., 8 Minn. 214, 441 Reich v. S., 53 Ga. 73, 695 Keid V. Ham. 54 Minn. 305, 920 Keid V. S., 88 Ala. 36. 112 Beld V. S., 71 Ga. 865, 52 Rellly V. Gray, 28 N. T. Supp. 811, 57ff Reinhold v. S., 130 Ind. 467, 202, 323 Relnitz, In re, 39 Fed. 204, 919 Reins V. P., 30 111. 274, 775, 866, 901 Rema v. S., 52 Neb. 375, 132 Kembert v. S., 53 Ala. 467, 256 Reneau v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 720, 10, 687 Renew v. S., 79 Ga. 162, 4ia Kenfro v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 1013, 735 Kenshaw, Ex parte, 6 Mo. App. 474, 458 Ressler v. Peats, 86 111. 275, 688 Reuck V. McGregor, 32 N. J. L. 70, 687 Rex V. Barnard. 7 C. & P. 784, 160 Rex V. Barton, 1 Moody 141, 265 Rex V. Baxter, 2 East P. C. 781, 710 Rex V. Bazeley, 2 Leach 973, 138 Rex V. Beacall, 1 C. & P. 457, 138 Rex V. Berriman, 5 C. & P. 601, 851 Rex V. Bird, 12 Cox C. C. 257, 104 Rex V. Biick. 4 C. & P. 377, 849 Rex V. Borrett, 6 C. & P. 124, 151 Rex V. Cabbage, R. & R. 292, 102 Rex V. Carroll, 7 C. & P. 145, 617 Rex V. Caton, 4 Burr. 2026, 659 Rex V. Chappie (Mich. T.), 2 East P. C. 1076, 227 Rex V. Codrington, 1 C. & P. 661, 165 Rex V. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 582, 248, 264 Rex V. Crockett, 4 C. & P. 544, 29 Rex V. Crofts, 2 Strange 1120, 364 Rex V. Cnndick, 1 Dow. & Ky. 356, 580 Rex V. Dyson, 7 C. & P. 305, 624 Rex V. Edwards, Trem. P. C. 103, 158 Rex V Emden, 9 East 437, 670 Rex V. Farrel, 2 East' P. C. 557, 215 Kex V. Flatman, 14 Cox C. C. 396, 109 Rex V. Freeman, 5 C. & P. 534, 140 Rex V. Gay, 7 C. & P. 230, 24 Rex V. Gilles. Russ. & Ry. 367n, 580 Rex V. Goate, 1 Ld. Raym. 737, 256 Rex V. Go vers. Say. 206, 160 Rex V. Green, 6 C. & P. 655, 812 Rex V. Grey, 1 East P. C. 460, 319 Rex V. Hall, 3 C. & P. 409, 620, 629 Rex V. Hawtin, 7 C. & P. 281, 135, 136, 140 Rex V. Heath, K. & R. C. C. 184, 252 Rex V. Hickman, 1 Leach 310, 215 Rex V. Histed, 19 Cox C. C. 16, 811 Rex V. Hord, Say. 176, 879 Rex V. Hughes, 5 C. & P. 126, 674 Rex V. Hughes, 1 Moody 370, 138 Rex V. Jackson, 3 Camp. 370, 161 Rex V. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539, 148 Rex V. Lapier, 1 Leach 360, 215 Rex V. Lara, 6 Term R. 565, 161 Rex V. Lee, L. & C. 309, 165 Rex V. Leech, 3 Stark. 70, 141 Rex V. Long, 4 C. & P. 423, 9 Kex V. Manners, 7 C. & P. 801, 638 Rex V. March, 1 Moody 182, 236 Rex V. Martin, 5 C. & P. 128, 674 Kex V. May, 1 Doug. 198, 306 Rex V. Mayhew, 6 C. & P. 315, 423 Kex V. McDaniel, Foster 121, 619 Rex V. M'Intosh, 2 East P. C. 942, 253 Kex V. Mead, 4 C. & P. 535, 100, 138 Rex V. Messlngham, 1 Moody 257, 190 Kex V. Millard, Russ. & Ry. 245, 264 Kex V. Mogg, 4 C. & P. 363, 229 Kex V. Moore, 3 B. & Ad. 184, 302 Kex V. Murray, 5 C. & P. 145, 146 Rex V. Murry, 1 Moody 276, 106 Kex T. O'Donnell, 7 C. & P. 138, 184, 823 Kex V. Ossulston, 2 Strange 1107, 441 Rex V. Owen, 2 East P. C. 645, 105 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi [.References are to Pages.'] Rex V. Partridge, 7 C. & P. 551, 122 Rex V. Pearce, 2 Bast P. C. 1072, 224 Rex V. Pedley, 1 Leach 365, 410 Rex V. Phillips, 3 Camp. 77, 493 Rex V. Pike, 3 C. & P. 598, 30 Rex V. Powell, 2 East P. C. 976, 711 Rex V. Reed, M. & M. 403, 35 Rex V. Rees, 6 C. & P. 606, 136 Rex V. Rice, 8 East 581, 307 | Rex V. Rlckman, 2 East P. C. 1034, 237 Rex V. Riley, 16 Cox C. C. 191, 88 Rex V. Scott, 3 Burr. 1262, 343 Rex V. Selway, 8 Cor C. C. 235, 215 Rex V. Smith, Russ. & R. 516, 138 Rex V. Smyth, 5 C. & P. 201, 279 Rex v. Snowley, 4 C. & P. 390, 136 Rex V. Spencer, 1 C. & P. 260, 425 Rex V. Spilier, 5 C. & P. 333, 9 Rex V. Stannard, 7 C. & P. 673, 829 Rex T. Stoughton, 2 Strange 900, 707 Rex V. Taylor, 3 B. & P. 596, 156 Rex T. Taylor, a East P. C. 1020, 232 Rex V. Thompson, 1 Moody 78, 105 Rex V. Verelst, 3 Camp. 432, 414 Rex V. Wakeling, R. & R. 504, 177 Rex T. Wheatly, 2 Burr. 1127, 158, 252 Rex V. White, 1 Burr. 337, 487 Rex V. White, R. & R. 99, 329 Rex V. Williams, 6 C. & P. 626, 136, 153 Rex V. Williams, 7 C. & P. 354, 169 Rex V. Wylie, 1 New R. 95, 387 Reyes v. S., 34 Fla. 181, 556 Reynolds, Ex parte, 87 Ala. 136, 372 Reynolds, Ex parte, 35 Tex. Cr. 437, 693 Reynolds v. P., 83 111. 481, 638, 674 Reynolds v. P., 41 How.. Pr. (N. Y.) 179, 78 Reynolds T. S., 68 Ala. 502, 28, 893 Reynolds v. S., 69 Ala. 502, Z5 Reynolds v. S., 73 Ala. 3, 368 Reynolds v. S., 115 Ind. 421, 522 Reynolds v. S., 147 Ind. 3, 789, 819 Reynolds v. S., 27 Neb. 90, 78, 79, 93 Reynolds v. S., 58 Neb. 49, 512 Reynolds v. S., 1 Tex. App. 616, 312 Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 511 Rhinehart v. Schuyler, 2 Gilm. S. V. Chisenhall, 106 N. C. 676, 62, 66, 67 S. V. Chisnell, 36 W. Va. 667, 910 S. V. Chrisp, 85 N. C. 528, 487, 582 S. V. Christian, 66 Mo. 138, 307 S. V. Christmas, 101 N. C. 749, 200, 210 S. V. Chunn, 19 Mo. 233, 165 S. V. Chyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395, 782, 784, 836 S. V. City of Camden, 52 N. J. L. 289 292 S. V. City of Topeka, 36 Kan. 76, 648, 656 S. V. Clark, 9 Houst. (Del.) 536, 315 S. v. Clark, 2 Marv. (Del.) 456, 595 S. V. Clark, 69 Iowa 196, 83, 84, 95 S. V. Clark, 78 Iowa 492, 538, 53» S. V. Clark, 80 Iowa 517, 58 S. V. Clark, 102 Iowa 685, 591 S. V. Clark, 46 Kan. 65, 157, 159, 177, 176 S. V. Clark, 86 Me. 194, 229 S. V. Clark, 147 Mo. 20, 20 S. V. Clark, 54 N. H. 456, 504, 505, 506 S. V. Clark, 7 Jones (N. C.) 167, 232 S. v. Clark, 9 Ore. 466, 549 S. V. Clark, 42 Vt. 629, 193 S. V. Clary, 24 S. C. 116, 820 S. V. Clay, 100 Mo. 571, 176 S. V. Clayborne, 14 Wash. 622, 705 S. V. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516, 54 S. V. Clements, 15 Ore. 237, 496 S. V. Clemons, 78 Iowa 123, 548, 550, 552 S. V. Clevenger, 156 Mo. 190, 734 S. V. Clifford, 86 Iowa 550, 132 S. V. Clifton, 57 Kan. 448, 744 S. T. Clifton, 30 La. 951, 199 S. V. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 786, 839 S. V. Clogston, 63 Vt. 215, 409 S. V. Cloksey, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 482, 588 S. V. Clough, 49 Me. 573, 699 S. V. Cloughly, 73 Iowa 626, 361 S. V. Cloutman, 61 N. H. 143, 147 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi [References are to Pages."] V. Coates, 22 Wash. 601, V. Cochran, 147 Mo. 504, 210, 910 7, 11, 18, 36 S. V. Cochran, 10 Wash. 562, 544 S, V. Cody, 94 Iowa 169, 46 S. V. Cody, 65 Minn. 121, 259 S. V. Cody, 111 N. C. 725, „_ 502 S. V. Cody, 18 Ore. 506, 95, 96 S. V. Coffee, 39 Mo. App. 56, 507 S. T. Coffee, 75 Mo. App. 88, 503 S. V. Cohen, 108 Iowa 208, 872 S. V. Cohn, 9 Nev. 179, 242, 243 S. V. Cohoon, 12 Ired. (N. C.) 178, 592 S. V. Colby, 92 Iowa 463, ;385 S. V. Cole, 2 Pen. (Del.) 344, 621 S. V. Cole, 63 Iowa 695, 38, 821 S. V. Cole, 39 N. J. L. 324, 320 S. V. Cole, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 627, 762 S. V. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 261, 262, 263 S. V. Coleman, 5 Port. (AlaJ 32, 9 S. V. Coleman, 6 Rich. (S. C.) 185, 38 S. V. Coleman, 54 S. C. 152, 79 S. V. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 111, 236, 267, 675 S. V. Collins, 1 Marv. (Del.) 536, 144 S. V. Collins, 1 Pen. (Del.) 420, 589 S. T. Collins, 2 Idaho 1182, 233 S. V. Collins, 62 N. H. 694, 442 S. V. Collins, 67 N. H. 540, 477 S. V. Collins, 63 N. J. L. 316, 576, 577 S. V. Collins, 70 N. C. 241, 750, 772 S. V. Collins, 72 N. C. 144, 130 S. V. Collins, 115 N. C. 716, 851 S. V. Collins, lis N. C. 1203, 869 S. V. Collins, 62 Vt. 195, 419 S. v. Colton, 9 Houst. XDel.) 530, 400, 590 S. V. Colvin, 90 N. C. 717, 197 S. V. Colwell, 43 Minn. 378, 131 S. V. Colwell, 3 R. I. 284, 361 S. T. Combs, 47 Kan. 139, 149, 634 S. V. Comfort, 22 Minn. 271, 227 S. V. Comstock, 20 Kan. 650, 196 S. V. Conable, 81 iQwa 60, 338, 340 S. V. Conahan, 10 Wash. 268, 97 S. V. Cone, 16 Ind. App. 350, 557 S. V. Cone, 86 Wis. 493, 511 S. V. Conerly, 48 La. 1561, 789 S. V. Congrove, 109 Iowa 66, 111 8. V. Conkright, 58 Iowa 338, 546 S. V. Conley, 5 W. Va. 522, 238 S. V. Conners, 95 Iowa 485, 193 S. V. Connor, 110 Ind. 471, 168, 176 S. V. Conway, 2 Marv. (Del.) 453, 595 S. V. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 860 S. V. Conway, 56 Kan. 682, 615 S. V. Conway, 35 La. 350, 200 S. V. Cook, 65 Iowa 560, 87, 88 S. V. Cook, 92 Iowa 483, 83 S. V. Cook (Iowa), 61 N. W. 185, 84 S. V. Cooley, 72 Minn. 476, 693, 694 S. V. Coombs, 55 Me. 477, 100, 139 S. V. Coonan, 82 Iowa 400, 374 S. V. Cooper, 102 Iowa 146, 145, 154 S. V. Cooper, 45 Mo. 64, 856 S. V. Cooper, 103 Mo. 266, 515 S. V. Cooper, 1 Green (N. J. L.) 361, 676 S. y. Cooper, 22 N. J. L. 52, 493 S. V. Cooster, 10 Iowa 453, 569 S. V. Copeland, 86 N. C. 691, 110 S. T. Copp, 15 N. H. 212, 429 S. V. Corbett,_57 Minn. 345, 649 S. V. Corcoran (Idaho), 61 Pac. 1034, 327, 694, 900 S. V. C!orcoran, 70 Minn. 12, 377 S. V. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 666 hughes' C. li. — vi S. V. Costello, 62 Conn. 130, 22T S. V. Costin, 89 N. C. 511, 138, 140' S. V. Cottle, 15 Me. 478, 376' S. V. Cotton, 36 La. 980, 889' S. V. Council, 58 S. C. 368, 675> S. V. Covert, 14 Wash. 652, 145- S. V. Covington, 70 N. C. 71, 282' S. V. Covington, 94 N. C. 913, 256; S. V. Cowdery (Minn.), 81 N. W. 750, 153 S. V. Cowell, 12 Nev. 337, 208 S. V. Cox, 82 Me. 417, 490 S. V. Cox, 65 Mo. 29, 637 S. V. Cox, 6 Ired. (N. C.) 440, 701 S. V. Cox, N. C. T. R. 165, 504 S. V. Coyle, 41 Wis. 267, 250i S. V. Crafton, 89 Iowa 109, 735, 755 S. V. Craige, 89 N. C. 475, 99 S. V. Craine, 120 N. C. 601, 27, 34 S. V. Crane, 54 Kan. 251, 166, 168, 179 S. V. Crane, 95 N. C. 619, ^ 13 S. V. Craton, 6 Ired. (N. C.) 164, 913 S. V. Crawford, 11 Kan. 32, 622 S. V. Crawford, 99 Mo. 74, 243, 886 S. V. Crawford, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 425, 97 S. V. Crawford, 8 N. D. 539, 194, 208 S. V. Crawford, 39 S. C. 343, 263 S. V. Creson, 38 Mo. 372, 121, 831 S. V. Crinklaw, 40 Neb. 759, 736 S. V. Crocker, 5 Wyo. 385, 691 S. V. Crogan, 8 Iowa 523, 561 S. V. Cronin, 20 Wash. 512, 17, 722 8. V. Crook, 16 Utah 212, 495 S. V. Cross, 72 Conn. 722, 3, 834 8. V. Cross, 12 Iowa 66, 85 S. V. Cross, 27 Mo. 332, 887 8. V. Cross, 42 W. Va. 253, 38 8. V. Crow, 53 Kan. 662, 808 8. V. Crow, 107 Mo 341, 113 8. V. Crowell, 149 Mo. 391, 221 8. V. Crowell, 116 N. C. 1052, 544, 545 S. V. Crowley, 60 Me. 103, 657 8. V. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 171, 316, 322, 323 S. V. Crowner, 56 Mo. 147, 501, 503 8. V. Cruikshank, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 62, 409 8. V. Crnmmey, 17 Minn. 72, 669 8. V. Culler, 82 Mo. 623, 768 8. V. Cnllins, 53 Kan. 100, 368 8. V. Cnmmings, 33 Conn. 260, 99 8. V. Cunningham, 66 Iowa 97, 417, 421, 709 8. V. Cunningham (Iowa), 82 N. W. 775, 909 8. V. Cunningham, 15 Mo. 161, 147 8. V. Cunningham, 100 Mo. 382, 75, 771 8. V. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 161,- 137 8. V. Cunningham, 94 N. C. 824, 742 8. V. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 546, 551, 553 8. V. Curran (Md.), 4 Cr. L. Mag. 226, 196 8. V. Currie, 8 N. D. 545, 361 8. V. Curtis, 44 La. 320, 113 S. V. Curtis, 71 N. C. 56, 896 8. V. Curtiss, 69 Conn. 86, 364 8. V. Cushenberry, 157 Mo. 168, 884 8. V. Cushing, 14 Wash. 527, 823 8. V. Cushing, 17 Wash. 544, 13, 37 8. V. Dakin, 52 Iowa 395, 729, 731 S. V. Dale, 141 Mo. 284, 210 8. V. Daley, 29 Conn. 272, 631 S. V. Daley, 53 Vt. 442, 816, 831 8. V. Dalton, 103 N. C. 680, 898 8. V. Dalton (R. 1.), 46 Atl. 234, 575 8. V. Daly, 87 La. 576, 121 lxx?ii lABLE OF CASES. {References are to Pages.'i s. £. ;S. :S. S. ;S. ;,S. ,S. s. s. s. s. ,s. ,s. ,s. ;S. i.S. :S. s. s. V. Dame, 60 N. H. 479, 306, 489 V. nana, 59 Vt. 614, 535, 871 V. Dancy, 83 N. C. 608, 75 V. Daniel, 31 La. 92, 23, 27 V. Daniel, 87 N. C. 507, 87 T. Daniel, 114 N. C. 823, 166, 169 V. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 236 V. Daniels, 29 Tex. App. 492, 116 T. Dankwardt, 107 Iowa 704, 898 V. Darling, 89 Me. 400, 402 V. Dart, 29 Conn. 153, 31 y. Dashman, 153 Mo. 454, 205 V. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242, 128 V. Daugherty, 70 Iowa 439, 890 T. Davenport, 33 La. 231, 887 V. Davenport, 38 S. C. 348, 132 V,. David, 131 Mo. 380, 39, 763, 846 V. Davidson, 12 Vt. 300, 898 T. Davis, 9 HouBt. (Del.) 407, 38 V. Davis, 2 Pen. (Del.) 139, 389 V, Davis (Idaho), 53 Pac. 678, 39 V. Davis, 31 La. 249, 889 v. Davis, 34 La. 351. V. Davis, 66 Mo. 684, V. Davis, 70 Mo. 467, V. Davis, 141 Mo. 522, V. Davis, 14 Nev. 446, v. Davis, 38 N. J. L. 176, V. Davis, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 125, 814, 815 776 287 552 51, 468 108 77 V. Davis, 69 N. C. 495, 255, 265, 418 V. Davis, 77 N. C. 483, 617, 818 V. Davis, 80 N. C. 412, 296, 764 V. Davis, 84 N. C. 787. 420 v. Davis, 109 N. C. 780, 278, 511, 513, 622 V. Davis, 18 Otiio C. C. 479, 464 ' ' 688 817 809 901 843, 902 126 688 367 861 409, 426 811 v. Davis, 53 S. C. 150, V. Davis, 104 Tenn. 501, V. Davis, 30 Vt. 377, V. Davis, 31 W. Va. 390, v. Dawkins, 32 S. C. 17, V. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149, V. Day, 58 Iowa 678, V. Day, 37 Me. 244, v. Day, 79 Me. 120. V. Day, 100 Mo. 242, V. Day, 55 Vt. 570, T. Dayton. 23 N. J. L. 49, 414, 419 V. Deal, 64 N. C. 270, 216 V. Deal, 92 N. C. 802, 227 V. Dean, 71 Wis. 678, 344 V. Debolt, 104 Iowa 105, 271 V. De Boy, 117 N. C. 702, 562 V. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447, 38, 58 V. Deitri-ck, 51 Iowa 467, 550, 551 V. Delaney, 92 Iowa 467, 244 V. De Lay, 93 Mo. 98, 166 V. Delong. 96 Iowa 471, 92 V. Dengolensky, 82 Mo. 45, 375 V. Dennin, 37 Vt. 158, 234 V. Dennis, 2 Marv. (Del.) 433, 404 V. Dennis, 80 Mo. 956, 160, 168 V. Dennison (Neb.), 82 N. W. 383. 577 V. Denoon. 31 W. Va. 122, 364 V. Dent, 29 Kan. 416, 442, 443, 464 V. Dent, 6 Rich. (S. C.) 383, 842 V. Dent. 25 W. Va. 1, 480 V. Desforges, 47 La. 1167, 472, 473 V. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72, 859 V. Desroehe, 47 La. 651, 743 V. Dettmer, 124 Mo. 426, 726 V. Devlne, 51 La. 1296, 218 V. Dewitt, 2 Hill (S. C.) 282, 320 V. Deyoe, 97 Iowa 744, 132 V. Deyton, 119 N. C. 880, 310 V. Diekerson, 98 N. C. 708, 58 S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. v.. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S,v. s. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 24, 25. 158, 492, 493, 497, 509 Dickson, 6 Kan. 211, 423 Dickson, 78 Mo. 438, 809 Dierberger, 90 Mo. 369, 407 Dietz, 59 Kan. 576, 10, 687 Dill, 48 S. C. 249, 833 Dillard, 35 La. 1049, 695 Dilley, 15 Ore. 70, 797 Dillon, 48 La. 1365, 108 Dillon, 96 Mo. 56, 433 Dingee, 17 Iowa 232, 504 District Court, 65 Minn. 146, 449 Ditton, 48 Iowa 677, 124, 188 Dixon, 104 Iowa 741, 376 Dixon, 101 N. C. 741, 160 Dixon, 114 N. C. 850, 309, 312 Doekstader, 42 Iowa 436, 831 Dodge, 78 Me. 439, 377 Doe, 79 Ind. 9, 102 Doepke, 68 Mo. 208, 100, 117 Dolson, 22 Wash. 259, 196 Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 481 Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151, 319 Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642, 17, 782 Donnelly, 72 Mo. App. 543, 132 Donohoo, 22 W. Va. 761, 829 Donovan, 61 Iowa 278, 501, 502, 507 Donovan, 121 Mo. 496, 132 Dooley, 89 Iowa 584, 17 Dooley, 121 Mo. 591, 53 Doolittle, 58 N. H. 92, 743 Dooly, 64 Mo. 146, 200 Dorr, 33 Me. 498, 165, 166, 168 Dorsey, 118 Ind. 167, 8 Doty, 103 Iowa 699, 554 Doty, 32 N. J. L. 403, 436 Dougher, 47 Minn. 436, 520 Dougherty, 55 Mo. 69, 775 Douglass, 7 Iowa 414, 596 Douglass, 41 W. Va. 537, 736 Dow, 21 Vt. 484. 301, 364, 365 Dowe, 27 Iowa 275, 165, 166, 168 Dowell, 106 N. C. 722, 76 Downing, 15 Wash. 413, 151 Downs, 148 Ind. 324, 590, 598 Downs, 116 N. C. 1064, 367 Doyle, 107 Mo. 36. 795 Drake, 64 N. C. 589, 358 Dredden, 1 Marv. (Del.) 522, 130 Driver, 73 N. C. 423, 87T Dubois; 49 Mo. 573, 206 Du Bose, 88 Tenn. 753, 307 Ducker, 8 Ore. 394, 104 Dudley, 7 Wis. 664, 783 Dudoussat, 47 La. 977, 389, 392 Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44, 38 Duffey, 128 Mo. 549, 92 Duffy, 124 Mo. 1, 327 Dugan (N. J. L.), 46 Atl. 566, 897 Duggan, 15 E. I. 412, 720 Dukes, 40 S. C. 481, 244 Dula, 100 N. C. 423, 404 Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438, 833,-835 Dunbar, 13 Ore. 591, 476 Duncan, 153 Ind. 318, 391 Dunlapp, 24 Me. 77, 176 Dunlop, 65 N. C 288, 781 Dunn, 73 Mo. 586, 297 Dunn, 109 N. C. 839, 406 Dunn, 22 Wash. 67, 59 Durein, 46 Kan. 695, 462 Durham, 121 N. 0. 546, 282, 283 Durnam, 73 Minn. 150, 389 Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277, 737 Dustin, 5 Ore. 375, 589, 590 TABLE OF CASES. IxXxiii [References are to Page's.'] S. V. Duzan, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 31, 310 S. V. Dycer, 85 Md. 246, 561 S. T. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 317, 321, 326, 327, 331, 707 S. V. Dyke, 96 Mo. 298, 730 S. V. Bades, 68 Mo. 150, 250, 251 S. V. Ban, 90 Iowa 534, 508 S. V. Earl, 41 Ind. 464, 441, 453 S. V. Earnest, 56 Kan. 31, 38 S. V. Earnhardt, 107 N. C. 789, 491 S. V. Eastman, 60 Kan. 557, 136, 138 S. V. Eastman (Kan.), 63 Pac. 597, 131 V. Eastman, 109 N. C. 785, 347, 350 S. V. Eaton, 85 Me. 237, 572 S. V. Eberline, 47 Kan. 155, 77 S. V. Eddon, 8 Wash. 292, 833 S. T. Edgerton, 100 Iowa 63, 5 S. V. Eding, 141 Mo. 281, 530, 535, 536 S. V. Edis, 147 Mo. 535, 91 S. V. Edwards, 34 La. 1012, 835 S. V. Edwards, 71 Mo. 312, 4 S. T. Edwards, 109 Mo. 315, 196, 201 S. V. Edwards, 110 N. C. 511, 519 S. y. Edwards, 126 N. C. 1051, 745 S. V. Egglesht, 41 Iowa 574, 257, 267 S. v. Eisenhour, 132 Mo. 140, 552 S. V. Eisenmeyer, 94 111. 101, 727 S. T. Ekanger, 8 N. D. 559, 365, 769 S. V. Ela, 91 Me. 309, 417, 421 S. V. Elder, 21 La. 157, 235, 241 S. V. Elliott, 45 Iowa 486, 30, 32, 33, 629, 766, 835 S. V. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207, 2 S. V. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 102, 389 S. V. Ellis, 22 Wash. 129, 777 S. V. Ellison, 58 N. H. 325, 211 S. T. Elsham, 70 Iowa 531, 845 S. V. Elswood, 15 Wash. 453, 82 S. V. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243, 897 S. V. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 243, 244, 679, 720 S. V. Emery, 65 Vt. 464, 407 S. V. Emery, 68 Vt. 109, 111 S. V. Emmons, 72 Iowa 265, 203 S. V. England, 78 N. C. 552, 239, 240 S. V. English, 67 Mo. 136, 850, 851 S. V. English, 14 Mont. 399, 111 S. V. Enright, 90 Iowa 520, 75, 92 S. V. Enslow, 10 Iowa 115, 227 S. T. Epperson, 27 Mo. 255, 47 S. T. Epps, 27 La. 227, 742 S. v. Erickson (Minn.), 83 N. W. 512, 81 S. V. Erickson, 45 Wis. 86, 75, 90, 709 S. V. Ernest, 150 Mo. 347, 75, 885 S. v. Errickson, 32 N. J. L. 421, 469 S. V. Eskridge, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 413, 359 S. T. Estabrooks, 70 Vt. 412, 419 S. V. Estep, 44 Kan. 572, 859 S. V. Estes, 46 Me. 150, 167 S. T. Estis, 70 Mo. 427, 403 S. V. Evans, 1 Marv. (Del.) 477, 3 S. V. Evans, 9 Kan. App. 889, 869 S. V. Evans, 124 Mo. 397, 21, 26, 27 S. V. Evans, 15 Mont. 539, 248 S. V. Evans, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 281, 97 S. V. Evans, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 607, 538, 539 S. V. Evans, 15 Rich. (S. C.) 31, 114 S. V. Evans, 12 S. D. 473, 863 S. V. Byans, 33 W. Va. 417, 624, 635 S. V. Evers, 49 Mo. 542, 168 S. V. Exnicios, 33 La. 253, 142 S. V. Ezzard, 40 S. C. 312, 136 S. V. Pagin, 28 La. 887, 461 S. V. Faile, 41 S. C. 551, 23 S. V. Faino, 1 Marv. (Del.) 492, 3, 7, 11, 12, 618 S. V. Pairclough, 29 Conn. 47, 106 S. V. Fairfield, 37 Me. 517, 373 S. V. Fairlamb, 121 Mo. 137, 17 S. V. Palk, 66 Conn. 250, 560, 570 S. V. Panning, 94 N. C. 944, 296 S. V. Fare, 39 Mo. App. 110, 293 S. V. Farmer, 84 Me. 436, 828 S. V. Farmers' Social Club, 73 Me. 97, 366 S. V. Farr, 33 Iowa 553, 637 S. V. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53, 70 S. V. Farrell, 82 Iowa 553, 252 S. V. Parris (Idaho), 51 Pac. 772, 116 S. V. Fassett, 16 Conn. 458, 718 S. V. Faulds, 17 Mont. 140, 441 S. V. Faulkner, 32 La. 725, 118 S. V. Pay, 44 N. J. L. 474, 362, 372, 381 S. V. Peldman, 80 Minn. 314, 723, 777 S. V. Fellows, 50 Wis. 65, 501 S. V. Feltes, 51 Iowa 495, 814 S. V. Fenlason, 78 Me. 495, 243, 902 S. V. Fenlason, 79 Me. 117, 711 S. V. Penn, 41 Conn. 590, 99, 127 S. V. Ferguson, 107 N. C. 841, 552, 829 S. V. Ferguson, 2 HUI (S. C.) 619, 30 S. V. Ferris, 16 La. 425, 754 S. V. Fertig, 98 Iowa 139, 699 S. V. Peuerhaken, 96 Iowa 299, 186, 189 S. V. Pidment, 35 Iowa 541, 238, 814 S. V. Field, 37 Mo. App. 83, 445 S. V. Fielding, 32 Me. 585, 82 S. V. Fields, 118 Ind. 491, 177 S. V. Pilmore, 92 Iowa 766, 123 S. V. Pindley, 45 Iowa 435, 364 S. V. Pindley, 101 Mo. 217, 153, 838 S. V. Finlayson, 113 N. C. 628, 896 S. V. Finley, 118 N. C. 1161, 743 S. V. Finney, 99 Iowa 43, 349 S. V. Fish, 3 Dutch. (27 N. J. L.) 323, 130, 235 S. V. Fisher, 106 Iowa 658, 115, 132 S. V. Fisher, 58 Mo. 256, 255 S. V. Fisher, 23 Mont. 540, 41 S. V. Fisher, 109 N. C. 817, 281 S; V. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 618 S. V. Fiske, 66 Vt. 434, 703 S. V. Fitzgerald, 49 Iowa 260, 493 494 755 S. V. Fitzgerald, 63 Iowa 268^ ' 543 S. V. Fitzgerald, 20 Mo. App. 408, 339 S. V. Fitzhugh, 2 Ore. 233, 28 S. V. Pitzpatrick, 9 Houst. (Del.) 385, 108 S. V. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, 83, 84, 87, 88, 705, 706 S. V. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, 772 S. V. Flagg, 25 Ind. 243, 417 S. V. Flagg, 50 N. H. 321, 405, 406 S. V. Flanagan (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 862, 200 S. V. Plannagan, 67 Ind. 140, 491 S. V. Fleak, 54 Iowa 429, 503, 507 S. V. Fleming, 32 Kan. 588, 366 S. V. Pleshman, 40 W. Va. 726, 255 S. V. Flint, 52 La. 62, 696 S. V. Ploto, 81 Md. 600, 419 S. V. Flournoy, 46 La. 1518, 150 S. V. Plye, 26 Me. 312, 246 S. V. Flynn, 28 Iowa 26, 225 S. V. Flynn, 36 N. H. 64, 823 S. V. Fockler, 22 Kan. 542, 199 S. V. Foley, 81 Iowa 36, 153 S. V. Foley, 45 N. H. 466, 300 S. V. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105, 825 S. V. Pontenot, 50 La. 537, 12 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages.'] S. V. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 163, V. Foote, 71 Conn. 731, v. Foote, 58 S. C. 818, V. Foot You, 24 Ore. 61, V. Foreman, 1 Marv. (Del.) 517, v. Foraythe, 78 Iowa 595, T. Foster, 1 Pen. (Del.) 289, 184, 137, 144, V. Foster, 37 Iowa 404, V. Foster, 79 Iowa 726, V. Foster, 136 Mo. 653, v. Foster (E. I.), 46 Atl. 833, V Fountain, 1 Marv. (Del.) 532, V. Foureade, 45 La. 717, V. Fourehy, 51 La. 228, V. Foamier, 68 Vt. 262, v. B^owler, 52 Iowa 103, v. Fox, 80 Iowa 312, 200, 208, 21P, V. Fox, 136 Mo. 139, V. Fox, 148 Mo. 517, V. Frahm, 73 Iowa 355, 204, T. Fraker, 148 Mo. 143, 171, T. France, 1 Tenn. 434, V. Prank, 41 La. 596, 233, V. Frank, 103 Mo. 120, V. Franklin Falls Co., 49 N. H. 254, 274, v. Franks, 64 Iowa 39. 199, Frazler, 53 Kan. 87, 76, 82, - ■ -• -- "- 75, 821, V. Frazler, 54 Kan. 719, V. Frazler, 79 Me. 95, V. Frederic, 69 Me. 400, T. Frederick, 45 Ark 347, V. Freeman, 8 Iowa 428, V. Freeman, 86 N. C. 683, V. Freeman, 89 N. C. 469, V. Freeman, 100 N. C. 429, V. Freeman, 63 Vt. 496, V. Frew, 24 W. Va. 416, 428, 429, v. Fricker, 45 La. 646, V Friend, 47 Minn. 449, v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 296, 698 717 V. Frost, 103 Tenn. 685, ' 372', V. Fry, 67 Iowa 475, V. Fulford, 33 La. 679, V. Fuller, 14 La. 667, V. Fuller, 96 Mo. 165, V. Furbush, 72 Me. 475, V. Furco, 51 La. 1082, V. Furguson, 76 N. C. 197, T. Furlong, 19 Me. 225, V. Furlong, 26 Me. 69, V. Furney, 41 Kan. 115, 23, 25, 27, 32, 318, 642, V. Gager, 28 Conn. 234, V. Gainor, 84 Iowa 209, V. Galebert, 39 Cal. 663, V. Gallagher, 20 R. I. 266, V. Gallop, 126 N. C. 979, T. Galloway, 45 Tenn. 326, v. Gallup, 1 Kan. App. 618, V. Gamble, 119 Mo. 427, V. Gardner, 1 Root (Conn.) 485, T. Gardner, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 27, v. Gardner, 54 Ohio St. 24, V. Garing, 74 Me. 152, V. Garity, 46 N. H. 61, V. Garllngton, 56 S. C. 413, V. Garrand, 5 Ore. 216, V. Garrett, 80 Iowa 589, V. Garrlngton, 11 S. D. 178, V. Garris, 98 N. C. 733, V. Garrison, 52 Kan. 180, V. Garvey, 28 La. 925. 176 224 785 80 38 498 154 140 884 3 619 572 669 154 743 617 712 581 580 212 175 851 237 585 489 206 715 715 302 828 355 404 685 129 84 583 435 149 113 718 731 615 697 740 52 874 894, 696 401 109 413 305, 25, 404, S. S. V. Garyey, 11 Minn. 163, 618, 708, 814, 845 290 825 815 514 274 456 449 736 784 265 391 539 301 929 817 406 767 177 196 816 805 S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. T. V. V. Gates, 27 Minn. 52, 550 Gaubert, 49 La. 1692, 255, 257 Gay, 25 La. 472, 204 Gay, 11 Miss. 440, 893 Gay, 18 Mont. 57, 3S Gedlcke, 43 N. J. L. 86, 493, 498 Gee, 28 Ore. 100, 254 Geer, 46 Kan. 529, 412, 423 Geer, 48 Kan. 752, 422 Gelpl, 48 La. 520, 355 Gentry, 125 N. C. 733, 624 Genz, 57 N. J. L. 459, 834 German, 54 Mo. 526, 810, 811 Gerrlsh, 78 Me. 20, 127, 131 Gesell, 124 Mo. 531, 790, 796 Geyer, 3 Ohio L. N. 431, 389 Gibbs, 10 Mont. 212, 423, 424, 425 Gibson, 97 Iowa 416, 196 Gibson, 108 Mo. 575, 66 Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 61, 62, 64 Gibson, 33 W. Va. 97, 447 Giersch, 98 N. C. 720, 361 Gilbert, 87 N. C. 527, 311, 314 Gilbert, 68 Vt. 188, 99 Gilchrist, 113 N. C. 673, 899 Giles, 125 Ind. 124, 224 Giles, 103 N. C. 391, 522, 525 Giles, 10 Wis. 101, 464 Giliett, 56 Iowa 459, 58 Gilman, 69 Me. 163, 3 Gilmore, 100 Mo. 1, 150 Gilmore, 141 Mo. 506, 275 Giron, 52 La. 491, 883 Gitt Lee, 6 Ore. 427, 567 Gladden, 78 N. C. 150, 296 Glahn, 97 Mo. 679, 35 Glass, 5 Ore. 73, 496 Glaudi, 43 La. 914, 391, 392 Glave, 51 Kan. 330, 742 S. v. Gleason, 56 Iowa 203, 111 S. V. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245, 682 S. T. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 638, 639, 770, 801, 845, 865 S. V. Glenn, 118 N. C. 1194, 282 S. V. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 819, 329 S. V. Glover, 112 N. C. 896, 920 S. v. Goddard, 146 Mo. 177, 735 S. V. Godet, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 210, 129 S. V. Godfrey, 97 N. C. 507, 222 S. V. Godfrey, 17 Ore. 800, 46, 49, 50, 58 S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. Goering, 106 Iowa 636, 49 . Goff, 20 Ark. 289, 357 Goff, 117 N. C. 755, 790 . GofC, Wright (Ohio) 79, 442 Golden, 49 Iowa 48, 198 . Gonce, 79 Mo. 600, 510 , Gonge, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 132, 696 . Gonsoulin, 42 La. 579, 418 . Gooch, 60 Ark. 218, 129, 669 . Gqoch, 105 Mo. 392, 327 . Gooch, 94 N. C. 987, 766 . Good, 132 Mo. 114, 822 Goodenow, 65 Me. 30, 2, 502 . Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 257 . Goodrich, 14 W. Va. 834, 515 . Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 647 . Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 65, 707 . Gordon, 56 Kan. 67, 165, 176 . Gordon, 46 N. J. L. 432, 68, 516, 783 . Gorham, 55 N. H. 152, 47, 116, 215, 219 . Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 861 . GosB, 69 Me. 22, 141, 150, 155, 400 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxv [References are to Pages.'i 8. V. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. 8. V. S. V. < s. V. «. T. s. V. s T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. T. 8. V. S. T. 8. V. S. T. s. V. s. V. 8. V. 8. T. S. V. S. V. S. T. S. V. 8. T. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. T. 8. V. S. V. S. V. s. V. 8 V. S T. s V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. T. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. T. 8. T. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8 V. 8. V. 8. V. Goss, 66 Minn. 291, 921, 922 Goss, 73 Minn. 126, 930 Gobs, 74 Mo. 593, 228 Goss, 59 Vt. 266, 385 Gould, 40 Iowa 372, 347 Goul^, 26 W. Va. 258, 223, 228 Goyette, 11 R. I. 592, 361 Grady, 84 Mo. 224, 718 Grady, 12 Mo. App. 361, 718 Graff, 66 Iowa 482, 216 Graham, 38 Ark. 519, 655 Graham, 61 Iowa 608, 13, 833 Graham, 62 Iowa 108, 910 Graham, 73 Iowa 553, 370 Graham, 96 Mo. 120, 393 Graham, 74 N. C. 646, 816, 823 Gramelspaeher, 126 Infl. 398, 391 Granger, 87 Iowa 355, 524 Grauneman. 132 Mo. 326, 356, 646 Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 160, 318, 322, 323, 325, 327 Grant, 74 Mo. 33, 256 Grant, 79 Mo. 113, 685 Grant, 144 Mo. 56, 59 Grant, 152 Mo. 57, 865 Grant, 104 N. C. 908, 119 . Grate, 68 Mo. 22, 741, 830 Graves, 95 Mo. 510, 131 Graves, 72 N. C. 482, 121, 205 Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 373 Gray, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 274, 519 Gray, 37 N. J. L. 368, 890, 932 Gray, 19 Nev. 212, 730 Gray, 106 N. C. 734, 131 Gray, 109 N. C. 790, 282 Grear, 28 Minn. 426, 814 Grebe, 17 Kan. 458, 187 Green, 27 La. 598, 115 Green, 43 La. 402, , 726 Green, 6 N. J. L. 123, 194 Green, 92 N. C. 779, 239 Green, 26 S. C. 105, 848 Green, 36 S. C. 266, 281 Green, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 131, 711 , Green. 7 Wis. 686, 165, 177 Greenless. 41 Ark. 353, 228 . Greenwade, 72 Mo. 300, 825 Greenwood, 76 Minn. 211, 257 258 , Gregor, 21 La. 473, ' 835 . Gregory, 110 Iowa 624, 361 Gregory, 33 La. 737, 240 Grider, 18 Ark. 297, 572 , Grlffln, 38 La. 502, 694 Griffin, 87 Mo. 608, 52 Grlffln, 66 N. H. 326, 647 Griffin, 18 Vt. 178, 252 Griffon, 79 Iowa 568, 119 Grigg, 104 N. C. 882, 335 , Griggs, 34 W. Va. 78, 563 . Grimes, 50 Minn. 123, 234, 242 Grimes, 51 Minn. 123, 238 Grimes, 74 Minn. 257, 570 Grimes, 101 Mo. 188, 230 Grlswold, 73 Conn. 95, 142 Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 572, 827 Groning, 33 Kan. 18, 193 Grote, 109 Mo. 345, 634 Groves, 119 N. C. 822, 222 Groves, 15 E. I. 208, 478 Groves, 21 E. I. 252, 571 Grubb, 55 Kan. 678, 74 Guest, 101 Mo. 234, 123 Guest, 100 N. C. 410, 507 Guild, 149 Mo. 370, 186, 188 Guild, 5 Hals. (N. J. L.) 192, 813 Guinness, 16 R. I. 401, 744 S. V. Gulton, 51 La. 155, 531, 704, 705 S. V. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447. 266 S. V. Gunagy, 84 Iowa 177, 544, 550, 886 S. V. Gunn, 106 Iowa 120, 498 S. V. Gurnee, 14 Kan. Ill, 221 S. V. Gustin, 152 Mo. 108, 669 S. V. Guy, 46 La. 1441, 685 S. V. Gwlnn, 24 S. C. 146, 240 S. V. Habil, 18 E. I. 558, 130, 188, 190, 263 S. V. Haekett, 47 Minn. 425, 119 S. V. Hackfath, 20 Mo. App. 615, 224 S. V. Haddock, 109 N. C. 873, 338 S. V. Haddon, 49 S. C. 308, 81 S. V. Hadley, 54 N. H. 224, 330 S. V. Hager, 61 Kan. 504, 676 S. V. Hagerman, 47 Iowa 151, 78 S. V. Hahn, 38 La. 169, 858 S. V. Halistock, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 257, 54 S. V. Haines, 30 Me. 65, 302 S. V. Haines, 35 N. H. 207, 364 S. V. Haines, 35 Ore. 379, 372 S. V. Haines, 36 S. C. 504, 166, 177, 765 S. V. Hair, 37 Minn. 351, 95 S.'V. Hairston, 121 N. C. 579, 76 S. V. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306, 81 S. v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 826 S. V. Hale, 70 Mo. App. 143, 314 S. V. Hale, 12 Ore. 352, 124 S. V. Haley, 52 Mo. App. 520, 227 S. V. Haiford, 104 N. C. 874, 211, 216 S. V. Halida, 28 W. Va. 499, 128, 715 S. V. Hall, 76 Iowa 85, 103 S. V. Hall, 79 Iowa 674, 131 S. V. Hall, 97 Iowa 400, 886 S. V. Hail, 40 Kan. 338, 920 S. V. Hall, 32 N. J. L. 158, 302, 566 S. V. Hall, 108 N. C. 776, 897 S. V. Hall, 114 N. 0. 909, 44, 666 S. V. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 917, 918, 921 S. V. Hallock, 70 Vt. 159, 243 S. V. Ham, 98 Iowa 60, 205 S. V. Ham, 54 Me. 194, 343 S. V. Ham, 64 N. J. L. 49, 383 S. V. Hamann, 109 Iowa 646, 546 S. V. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452, 223 S. V. Hambright, 111 N. C. 707, 809 S. V. Hamilton, 57 Iowa 596, 615 S. V. Hamilton, 46 Neb. 284, 145 S. v. Hamilton, 13 Nev. 386, 717 S. V. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 95, 697 S. V. Hampton, 63 N. C. 13, 52 S. V. Hand, 7 Iowa 411, 540 S. V. Haney, 110 Iowa 26, 200 S. V. Hanley, 47 Vt. 290, 293 S. V. Hanlon, 32 Ore. 95, 100' S. V. Hann, 73 Minn. 140, 75 S. V. Hann, 40 N. J. L. 228, 637 S. V. Hanna, 35 Ore. 195, 186, 187, 189 S. V. Hannett, 54 Vt. 83, 235, 801 S. V. Hanscom, 28 Ore. 427, 159, 162, 175 S. V. Hanshew, 3 Wash. 12, 115 S. V. Hant, 137 Ind. 537, 788 S, V. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647, 15 S; V. Harding, 20 Wash. 556, 246 S. V. Hargrave, 65 N. C. 466, 74 S. V. harlau,,98 Iowa 458, 92 S. V. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635, 135, 154 S. V. Harper, 149 Mo. 514, 865 S. V. Harper, 35 Ohio St. 78, 25 S. V. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 16 W. Va. 877, 433, 442 S. V. Harras, 22 Wash. 57, 771 S. V. Barren, 107 N. C. 944, 297 S. V. Harriman, 75 Me. 562, 102 Ixsxvl TABLE OP CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.} S. V. Harris, 11 Iowa 414, 228 S. f. Harris, 34 La; 118, 883 S. V. Harris, 51 La. 1194, 767 S. v. Harris. 50 Minn. 128, 372 S. V. Harris, 34 Mo: 347, 713 S. T. Harris, 150 Mo. 56, 82, 83, 91 S. V. Harris, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 287, 262 S. V. Harris, 1 Jones L. (N. C.) 190, 625 S. V. Harris, 6i N; C. 127, 131 S. V. Harrison, 82 Iowa 716, 58 S. V. Harrison, 69 N. C. 143, 265 S. V. Harrison, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 542, 907 S. V. Harrison, 66 Vt. 523, 206, 207 S. V. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 620, 623, 730, 775, 883 S. V. Harrod, 102 Mo. 590, 36 S. V. HarsH, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 346, 352 S. T. Hart, 29 Iowa 268, 115 S. V. Hart, 67 Iowa 142, 257, 790 S. V. Hart, 33 Kan. 218, 671 S. V. Hart, 34 Me. 36, 490 S. V. Hartflel, 24 Wis. 60, 367 S. V. Hartley, 22 Nev. 342, 766 S. v. Hartnett, 75 Mo. 251, 843 S. V. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339, 807 S. V. Harvey, 141 Mo. 343, 235 S. V. Hascall, 6 N. H. 352, 414 S. V. Haskell, 76 Me. 399, 228 S. V. Haskins, 109 Iowa 656, 334 S. V. HasledaW, 3 N. D. 36, 153 S. V. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452, 257, 258, 265, 401, 708, 839 S. V. Hatch, 94 Me. 58, 708 S. V. Hatch, 116 N. C. 1003, 401 S. V. Hathaway, 106 Mo. 236, 484 S. V. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36, 485 S. V. Hattaway, 2 N. & M, (S. C.) 118. 413 S. V. Haverly, 21 Mo. 498, 850 S. V. Hawkins (Neb.), 83 N. W. 198 842 S. V. Hawkins. 77 N. C. 494, 401 S. V. Hawkins, 115 N. C. 712, 414, 426 S. V. Hawks. 36 Minn. 129, 795 S. V. Haydeu. 45 Iowa 11, 866 S. V. Hayes. 67 Iowa 27, 364, 742 S. V. Hayes, 98 Iowa 619, 104 S. V. Hayes, 105 Iowa 82, 552 S. V. Hayes, 59 Kan. 61, 150 S. V. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307, 234 S. V. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 619 S. V. Hayes, 111 N. C. 727, 860 S. V. Hayne, 88 N. C. 625, 312, 314 S. V. Haynes, 66 Me. 307, 235, 236 S. V. Haynes, 71 N. C. 79, 818 .S. V. Haynes, 35 Vt. 570, 828 S. V. Hays, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 156, 677 S. V. Hays, 41 Tex. 526, 713 S. V. Hazard, 2 E. I. 474, 128, 185 S. V. Ilazen, 39 Iowa 649, 508 S. V. Hazledahl, 2 N. D. 521, 679 S. V. Heacock, 106 Iowa 191, 338, 340 S. T. Headrick, 149 Mo. 396, 42, 735 S. V. Healey, 105 Ind. 162, 7 S. V. Ilealy, 50 Mo. App. 243, 338 S. V. Hearsey. 50 La. 373, 76 S. V. Heatherton, 60 Iowa 175, 542, 552 S. V. Heckler. 81 Mo. 417, 375 S. V. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531, 193, 194 S. V. Heed, 57 Mo. 252, 423 S. V. Heflin, 8 Humph. (Tetm.) 84, 296 S. v. Heinze, 45 Mo. App. 403, S. V. Hellekson, 13 S. D. 242, S. V. Hellwig, 60 Mo. App. 483, S. V. Helm, 92 Iowa 540, S. V. Henderson, 47 Ind. 127, 728 856 136 37, 673 563 S. V. Henderson, 84 Iowa 161, 60Ii S. v. Henderson, 15 Wash. 598, 47% S. V. Hendricks, 15 Mont. 194, 304, 305, 5iy S. v. Henn, 39 Minn. 476, 58 S. v Hennessey, 23 Ohio St. 339, 111, 118, 257. S. V. Henning, 33 Ind. 189, 467i S. V. Henning, 3 S. D. 492, 735, S. V. Henry, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 463, 194, S. V. Henry, 5 Jones (N. C.) 65, 828! S. V. Henthorn, 46 Kan. 613, 447 S. V. Herges. 55 Minn. 464, 530! S. V. Hermann, 117 Mo. 629, 9: S. V. Herold, 9 Kan. 194, 6SQ S. V. Herrlngton, 21 Ark. 195, 52 S. V. Hesseltine, 130 Mo. 468, 25!) S. V. Hester, 48 Ark. 40, 567, S. V. Hettrick, 126 N. C. 977, 294 S. V. Hewell, 90 N. C. 705, 310! S. V. Hewett, 31 Me. 396, 319, 322 V. Heyeman, 2 Pen. (Del.) 143, 259 S. V. Hibler, 149 Mo. 478, 92 V. Hice. 117 N. C. 782, 829 V. Hickerson, 72 N. C. 421, 518 T. Hickey, 50 La. 600, i 37, 627, V. Hickling. 41 N. J. L. 208, 316, 318 V. Hickman, 54 Kan. 225, 361 V. Hicks, 125 N.-C. 636, 21, 42 V. Higdon, 32 Iowa 264, 65 V. Higgins, 88 Mo. 354, 99 V. Higgins, 124 Mo. 640, 408 V. Higgins, 51 S. C. 51, 273 V. Hight, 124 N. C. 825, 898 V. Hilberg (Utah), 61 Pac. 215, 87 V. Hill, 46 La. 736, 118 V. Hill, 55 Me. 365, 23» S. V. Hill, 72 Me. 238, 163, 164, 166, 178 Hill, 69 Mo. 451, V. Hill, 91 Mo. 423, 548, 551, 552 V. Hill, 134 Mo. 663, 545 V. Hill, 47 Neb. 456, 138 V. Hill, 58 N. H. 475, 499 V. Hill, 91 N. C. 561, 874 V. Hill (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 831, 782 V. Hill, 30 Wis. 416, 891, 900 V. Hilsabeck, 132 Mo. 348, 732, 800 V. Hilton, 35 Kan. 338, 246 V. Hilton, 26 Mo. 199, 470 V. Hilton, 3 Eich. L. (S. C.) 434, 514 V. Hines, 84 N. C. 810, 697 V. Hing, 16 Nev. 307, 763, 778 V. Hinnant, 120 N. C. 572, 314 V. Hobbs, 40 N. H. 229, 413 V. Hocker, 68 Mo. App. 415, 293 V. Hockett, 70 Iowa 442, 623 V. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510, 121, 205 V. Hodges, 55 Md. 127, 185 V. Hodges, 144 Mo. 50, 263 V. Hodgskins. 19 Me. 155, 505, 506 V. Hodgson, 66 Vt. 134, 373, 875 V. Hoffman, 53 Kan. 700, 113, 123 V. Hogreiver, 152 Ind. 652, 353, 358 V. Holt, 23 N. H. 355, 401 V. Hoke, 84 Ind. 137. 113, 711 v. Holcomb. 86 Mo. 371, 685 V. Holder, 81 N. C. 527, 102 V. Holedger, 15 Wash. 443, 558 V. Hollenbeck, 36 Iowa 112, 495, 500 V. Hollenbeck, 67 Vt. 34, 77, 87 V. Hollenscheit, 61 Mo. 302, 897 V. HoIIeyman, 55 S. C. 207, 3T5 V. Hoilingsworth, 1 Marv. (Del.) 528, 6 ■ ' 105 V. HoUon, 22 Kan. 580, 471 V. Hollon, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 482. 335 v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222, 749, 834 TABLB OF CASES. lixxxvii IReferenees are to Paget.'] V. HoIIoway, 117 N. C. 730, 869 V. Hollyway, 41 Iowa 200, 216, 629 V. Holman, 104 N. C. 861, 489 V. Holmes, 28 Conn. 230, 118 V. Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 152. 831, 910 V. Holmes, 17 Mo. 379, V. Holt, 84 Me, 509, V. Homan, 41 Tex. 155, V. Homer, 40 Me. 438, v. Hood, 51 Me. 363, V. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658, V. Hopkins, 94 Iowa 86, V. Hopkins, 56 Vt. 250, V. Hopper, 133 Ind. 460, V. Horacek, 41 Kan. 87, V. Horn, 19 Ark. 579, V. Home, 9 Kan. 119, 472, 108 473 570 539 T51, 891 403 896 137 418 366 294 861, 901 S. V. Horner, 1 Marv. (Del.) 504, 472 S. T. Horton, 100 N. C. 443, 551, 553 S. v., Houck, 73 Ind. 37, 487 S. V. House. 55 Iowa 466, 1«4, 181 S. V. House, 108 Iowa 68, 132 8. V. Houser, 26 Mo. 435, 803 S; V. Houston, 103 N. C. 383, 408i 592, 782 S: V. Howard, 91 Me. 396, 382 S. V. Howasrd. 66 Minn. 309, 395 S. V. Howard, 118 Mo. 127, 755, 784 S. V. Howard, 137 Mo. 289, 415 V. Howard, 15 Rich. (S. C;X 282, 711 150, 726 V. Howarrf, 32 Vt. 380, S, V. Howe, 27 Ore. 138, S. V. Howell, 21 Mont. 165, S. V. Howell, 107 N. C. 835, S. V. Howerton, 58 Mo. 581, S. V. Hoxsie, 15 E. I. 2, S. V. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 750, 771, S. T. HHibbard, 60 Iowa 466, S. V. Hubbard, 58 Kan. 797, S. V. Hubbard, 71 Vt. 405, S. y. Hubbs, 58 Ind. 415, S; T. Huber, 8 Kan. 447, S. T. Huckeby, 8 Mo. 414, S. V. Hudsonj 110 Iowa 663, S. V. Hudson, 74' N. C. 246, S. V. Hudson, 2 Ohio N. P. \\ S. V. Hudspeth, 150 Mo. 12, S. V. Huegin (Wis.), 85 N. 1046, 931 S. v.Hutf, 76 Iowa 200, 366 S. V. Hufl, 11 Nev. 17, 2 S. V. Hughes, 1 Ala. 655, 742 S. V. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102, 905 S. T. Hughes, 58 Iowa 165, 510, 512, 514, 515, 517 S. T. Hughes, 106 Iowa 125, 547, 548j 552, 553 54 279 217 381 888, 905 362, 368 139, 140 721 49 899 417 772 896 917 625, 735 W. 8. g. . V. Hughes, 35 Kan. 626, 514 I. V. Hughes, 24 Mo. 147, 370 . V. Hulder, 78 Minn. 524, 175, 179 1. V. Hull, 84 Conn. 132, ■ 53 ': V. Hull, 83 Iowa 112, 239 1. V. Hull, 33 Ore. 56, 619 1. V. Hull, 18 R. I. 207, 541, 542, 802, 831 1. V. Hull, 45 W. Va. 767, 91 1. V. Hume, 12 Ore. 133, 352 :. V. Humphy, 32 Vt. 569, 103 1. T. Hunkins, 90 VFis. 264, 268 V. Hunnicut, 34 Ark. 562,, 141 V. Hunt, 137 Ind. 537, 408, 409, 912, 914 1. V. Hunter, 50 Kan. 302, 845 1. V. Hunter, 43 La. 157, 740 V. Hunter, 94 N. C. 829, 469 S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. Hunter, 10« Nl C. 796, 52, 684 Hunter, 44- Tex. 94, 57 Hunter,^ 18 Wash. 670, 79, 83 Huntley, 3 lired: CN'. C.) 420, 30S. HuntWy, 25 Ore. 349, 211 Hurd, 101' Iowa 391', 533, 536 Hurley, 58 Kan. 668, 176, 179 HuTltey, 54 Me. 562; 378, 807 Hurley, 71 Me. 354, 710 Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54; 114, 169i 172, 173, T47, 905 Hussex,, 7 Iowa 409, 82, 711 Hutchinson; 60' Iowa 478', 1"4'6, 84(> Hutchinson, 95 Iowa 566, 82, 84 H-ntehinson, 36 Me. 261', 501, 504 Hutchinson, 111 MO. 257, 207, 212 Hutchinson, 55 Ohio St. 573i 4781 Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St. 82, Hutchinson, 14 Wash. 580; Hyde, 22 Wksh. 551, Hy.land; 144 Mo. 302, lago, 66 Minn. 231, Igo, 108 Mo. 568, 111, 74 Iowa 441, Imlay, (Utah), 61 Pac. 557, Ingalls. 59 Nl H. 88, IngersoH; IT Wis. 631, Ingram, 6 Tfenn. 221, li-win, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 567, Irwin,, 30 W. Va. 405, Ilsenhart, 32 Ore. 170, Isley, 119 N: C. 862, 478. 727 131 T 92 222 77T 84 362 63t 528! 462 4591 505 225 Ivey, 100 N. C. 539; 698, 701, 7IS Ivins, 36 N; J; L. 233, 83, 861 Jackson, 39 Conn. 229; 704' Jackson, 30 Me. 29, 92, 129' Jackson, 73 Me. 91', 388, 589' Jackson, 90 Mo. 156, 255: Jackson,, 112 Mo. 585, 177, 178' Jackson, 69 N. H. 511, 777 Jackson; 82 N. C. 565, 331' Jackson, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 283, 322 Jacobs, 50 La. 447, lOt Jacobs, 5 Jones (N. C.) 259, 785, 834! Jacobs, 103 N. C. 397, Jacobs, 106 N. C. 695, Jacobs, 7 Ohio N. P. 261, Jacques, 69 N. H. 220, Jaggers, 58 S. C: 41, Jake, 2 Winst. (N. C.) 80, James, 37 Conn. 355, James, 58 N. H. 67, James, 78 N. C. 455, James, 80 N; C. ZIO, Jamison, 74 Iowa 613, Jamison, 38 Minn. 21, . Jansen, 22 Ean. 498, . Jarvis, 67' Minn. \0, Jarvls, 18 Ore. 360, Jarvis, 20 Ore. 437, Jasper, 4 Dev. (N; G.) 325, Jaynes, 78 N. C. 504, JeflEcoat, 54 S. C. 196, Jfefferson, 77 Mo. 136, Jeffrey, 33 Ark. 136, Jeffries, 117 N. C. 727, Jenkins, 32 Ean; 477, Jenkins, 36 MO. 372, 214, 215, 900j Jenkins, 139 Mo. 535, Jenkins,. 5 Jones (N. C.) 430, Jenkins, 78 N. C. 478, Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, Jenkins, 20 S. C. 351, Jenkins, 60 Wis. 599, Jcnnett. 88 N. C. 665, 291 7791 327' 354! 841, 19* 470! lOC^ 682 682 1591 62, 64' 619> 37r 535, 836) 530, 5361 290 241 878; 2S 56r 82B 3611 77, 5131 194! 101, lit? 744, 674' Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.l Jennings, 79 Iowa 513, 202 Jennings, 24 Kan. 642, 893 Jennings, 18 Mo. 435, 898 Jennings, 87 Mo. 185, 120 Jennings, 134 Mo. 277, 736 Jerome, 82 Iowa 749, 83 Jeter, 47 S. C. 2, 233 Jim, 3 Jones (N. C.) 348, 785 Jim, 8 Jones (N. C.) 459, 232 Joaqum, 69 Me. 218, 415 Jolins, 15 Ore. 27, 203 Jolinson, 12 Ala. 840, 53 Jolinson, 40 Conn. 136, 618 Jolinson, 30 Fla. 499, 400 Jobnson, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 49, 411 Johnson, 69 Ind. 85. 501 Johnson, 19 Iowa 230, 234, 241 Johnson, 26 Iowa 407, 255 Jobnson, 49 Iowa 141, 108 Johnson, 72 Iowa 393, 884 Johnson, 89 Iowa 1, 518, 522, 525 Johnson, 6 Kan. App. 119, 580, 581 Johnson, 30 La. 921, 818 Johnson, 42 La 559, 406 Johnson, 12 Minn. 476, 515 Johnson, 33 Minn. 34, 209 Johnson, 93 Mo. 73, 237, 238, 470 Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 61, 62 63, 64, 66, 698, 717 Johnson, 118 Mo. 491, 28 Johnson, 12 Nev. 121, 786, 839 Johnson, 33 N. H. 456, 178 Johnson, 30 N. J. L. 185, 51 Johnson, 67 N. C. 59, 893 Johnson, 3 N. D. 150, 56 Johnson, 2 Ore. 115, 112 Johnson, 7 Ore. 210, 317, 328 Johnson, 26 S. C. 152, 23, 25 Johnson, 43 S. C. 123, 345 Johnson, 45 S. C. 483, 194 Jobnson, 4 Wash. 593, 199 Jones, 1 McAll. 236, 265 Jones, 36 Iowa 608, 500 Jones, 70 Iowa 505, 95 Jones, 89 Iowa 182, 13 Jones, 16 Kan. 608, 544 Jones, 39 La. 935, 79 Jones, 52 La. 211, 776 Jones, 71 Miss. 872, 399 Jones, 20 Mo. 58, 2 Jones, 53 Mo. 486, 291 Jones, 54 Mo. 478, 813 Jones, 61 Mo. 232, 84 Jones, 64 Mo. 391, 782, 836 Jones, 68 Mo. 197. 268 Jones, 106 Mo. 302, 239 Jones, 134 Mo. 254, 832 Jones, 19 Nev. 365, 207 Jones, 70 N. C. 75, 168 Jones, 78 N. C. 420, 404, 469, 470, 471 Jones, 29 S. C. 201, 788 Jones, 10 Humpb. (Tenn.) 41, 401 Jones, 39 Vt. 370, 368 Jordan, 87 Iowa 86, 120, 123, 212 Jordan, 39 La. 340, ISS Jordan, 75 N. C. 27, 197 Joseph, 51 La. 1309, 885 Judges, 32 La. 1256, 460 Judge, 39 La. 132, 353 Judge Civil District Court, 40 . 434. 463 S. V. Judge Civil District Court, 47 La. 701, 463 s. V. s. V. 8. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. s. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. T. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. 8. V. La s. V. s. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. s. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. 8. V. 8. V. S. V. S. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. s. V. 8. V. S. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. 525 26 488 Judy, 60 Ind. 138, 309 Julian, 25 Mo. App. 133, 314 Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 648 June (Kan.), 61 Pac. 804, 708 Justus, 11 Ore. 178, 9, 719, 826 Kain, 118 Mo. 5, 174, 175 Kaiser, 124 Mo. 651, 902 Kaiser, 78 Mo. App. 575, 54 Kaiser, 20 Ore. 50, 435 Kane, 63 Wis. 260, 201, 202 Kaplan, 72 Conn. 635, 910 Karlowski, 142 Mo. 463, 896 Karnes, 51 Mo. App. 295, 291 Karver, 65 Iowa 53, Kassier, 15 Utah 142, Kaster, 35 Iowa 221, Kattlemann, 35 Mo. 105, 246, 672 Kaub, 90 Mo. 196, 577 Kaufman, 51 Iowa 578, 751, 777 Keach, 40 Vt. 113, 323 Kealy, 89 Iowa 94, 175, 918, 920 Kean, 69 N. H. 122, 347 Keaveny, 49 La. 667, 886 Kee, 39 Fed. 603, 472 Keefe, 54 Kan. 197, 833 Keeler, 28 Iowa 551, 809 Keena, 63 Conn. 329, 237 Keenan (Iowa), 82 N. W. 792, 749 Keene, 26 Me. 33, 419 Keene, 50 Mo. 358, 11, 833 Keeper of Jail, 5 N. J. L. 184, 447 Keesier, 78 N. C. 469, 532 Keeter, 80 N. C. 472, 249 Kegan, 62 Iowa 106, 218 Kcggon, 55 N. H. 19, 379, 808 Keitb, 47 Minn. 559, ~" "" Keith, 126 N. C. 1114, Kelley, 57 N. H. 549, Kelley, 66 N. H. 577, Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, Kelliher, 32 Ore. 240, Kelly, 57 Iowa 644, Kelly, 50 La. 597, Kelly, 76 Me. 331, Kelly, 97 N. C. 404. Kelly, 54 Ohio St. 166, Kelly, 28 Ore. 225, Kendall, 73 Iowa 255, Kendall, 54 8. C. 192, Kennedy, 63 Iowa 197, Kennedy, 154 Mo. 268, 215, 218, 220, 871 Kenney, 44 Conn. 153, 84 Kenney, 101 Mo. 160, 209 Kent, 22 Minn. 41, 143, 144 Kent, 5 N. D. 516, 736, 794, 824 Kepper, 65 Iowa 745, 211, 825 Kerby, 110 N. C. 558, 285 Kern, 51 N. J. L. 259, 399 Kerns (W. Va.), 34 S. B. 734, 858 Kerr, 3 N. D. 523, 377 Ketcbey, 70 N. C. 621, 793 Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 473 Keyser, 56 Vt. 622, 197 Kiger. 115 N. C. 746, 127 Kimball. 50 Me. 409. 38, 263 Kimble, 34 La. 392, 123 Kimes, 149 Mo. 459, 535 Kimmerllng, 124 Ind. 382, 71 Kinder, 109 Ind. 226. 54 finder, 22 Mont. 516, 188, 190 indig, 55 Kan. 113, 736, 738 Kindle, 47 Ohio St. 358, 24 Kindred, 148 Mo. 270, 3, 18 King, 81 Iowa 587, 153 King, 64 Mo. 595, 748 65, 67 144 834 211 125, 825 115, 131 120 120 44 744 477 771 78 351 325 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix IReferences are to Pages.'] V. King, 67 N. H. 219, 165, 169, 175 V. King, 9 S. D. 628, 544, 551, 552, 553 V. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 238, 243, 772 V. Klngsley, 108 Mo. 135, 166 V. Klnley, 43 Iowa 294, 829 V. Kinne, 41 N. H. 238, 796 V. Kinsauls, 126 N. C. 1095, 766, 777 V. Kirby, 57 Me. 30, 499 v. Kirby, 108 Mass. 772, 291 V. Klrkpatrick, 72 Iowa 500, 121 T. Kite, 81 Mo. 97, 401 V. Klttelle, 110 N. C. 560, 364 V. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148, 87 V. Knight, 84 N. C. 793, 416, 426 T. Knigbt, 3 S. D. 509, 429, 430, 457, 462, 464 V. Knott, 124 N. C. 814, 165 V. Knowles, 90 Md. 646, 710 V. Knowlton, 11 Wash. 512, 174, 175, 182 V. Knutson, 91 Iowa 549, 544, 552 v. Koerner, 51 Mo. 174, 881 V. Komstell (Kan.), 61 Pac. 805, 811 V. Kortgaard, 62 Minn. 7, 38, 136 v. Kouhns, 103 Iowa 720, 535 V. Kreeh, 10 Wash. 166, 355 V. Krider, 78 N. C. 481, 101 V. Kriechbaum, 81 Iowa 633, 364 V. Krleger, 68 Mo. 98, 131 V. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 834, 909 v. Kroseher, 24 Wis. 64, 240 T. Krueger, 134 Mo. 262, 597 V. Kruger (Idaho), 61 Pac. 36, 845 T. Kube, 20 Wis. 217, 158, 174 V. Kuhn, 154 Ind. 450, 928 V. Kusnlck, 45 Ohio St. 535, 134, 143 V. Kutter, 59 Ind. 572, 344 V. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 116 V. Labauve, 46 La. 548, 113 T. La Bore, 26 Vt. 765, 514, 701 T. Labounty, 63 Vt. 374, 228 V. Lackland, 136 Mo. 26, 121 S. V. Lafferty, 5 Har. (Del.) 491, S 52 T. La Grange, 94 Iowa 60,' 205 S. T. Lally,2 Marv. (Del.) 424, 594, 596 S. V. Lamb, 141 Mo. 298, 220 S. V. Landgraf, 95 Mo. 97, 5 S. V. Lane, 64 Mo. 319, 859 S. T. Langford, 45 La. 1177, 82, 84 S. V. Lanier, 90 N. C. 714, 718 S. V. Lantenschlager, 22 Minn. 514, 853 S. V. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 89, 825, 830, 831 S. V. Lague, 37 La. 853, 185 S. V. Largent, 9 Wash. 691, 57 S. V. Larkin, 11 Nev. 314, 39 S. V. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39, 191 S. V. Larkins (Idaho), 47 Pac. 945, 621, 835 S. T. Larrimore, 19 Mo. 391, 366 S. V. Larson, 85 Iowa 659. 118 S. V. Lash, 16 N. J. L. 380, 501 S. V. Lashley, 84 N. C. 755, 503 S. V. Lattin, 19 Wash. 57, 768 S. V. Lauderbeck, 96 Iowa 258, 552 S. V. Laughlin, 8 Jones (53 N. C.) 354, 232, 233, 245 S. V. Lavin, 80 Iowa 555, 521, 525 S. V. Lawler, 130 Mo. 336, 218, 220 S. V. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 766 S. T. Lawrence, 38 Iowa 51, 772 S. T. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 128, 469 S. V. Lawrence, 57 Me. 577, 623 S. V. Lawrence, 31 N. C. 522, 118 S. V. Lawrence, 12 Ore. 297, 693 S. v. Lawrence, 70 Vt. 524, 36 S. V. Lawry, 4 Nev. 161, 896 S. V. Lawson, 98 N. C. 759, 413 S. v. Lawson, 123 N. C. 740, 280 S. V. Lazarus, 1 Mill Const. (S. C.) 34, 54 S. V. Leach, 75 Ala. 36, 877 S. V. Leach, 7 Conn. 452, 404, 469, 662, 682 S. V. Leach, 60 Me. 58, 401 S. v. Leach, 50 Mo. 535, 302 S. V. Leach, 119 N. C. 828, 220 S. V. Leathers, 31 Ark. 44, 279 S. T. Le Blanch, 2 Vroom (N. J.) 82, 112 S. V. Le Duff, 46 La. 546, 766 S. V. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 496 S. V. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 198, 207, 304, 538, 539, 541, 542, 896 S. V. Lee, 33 Kan. 360, 249 S. V. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 830, 832 S. V. Lee, 80 N. C. 483, 798 S. V. Lee, 10 R. I. 494, 669 S. V. Lee, 58 S. C. 335, 30 S. T. Leeper, 70 Iowa 748, 496 S. V. Lee Ping Bow, 10 Ore. 27, 708 S. V. Lee Yan Yan, 10 Ore. 365, 98 S. V. Leflring, 61 Ohio St. 39, 48a S. T. Lelcham, 41 Wis. 565, 533, 751, 752 S. T. Leicht, 17 Iowa 28, 566 S. V. Leighton, 56 Iowa 595, 219 S. V. Leighton, 3 Fost. (23 N. H.) 167, 566 S. V. Le Jeune, 52 La. 463, 884, 885 S. T. Lenihan, 88 Iowa 670, 553 S. V. Lentz, 45 Minn. 180, 824 S. V. Leppere, 66 Wis. 355, 831 S. V. Lesing, 16 Minn. 75, 672, 899 S. V. Levigne, 17 Nev. 435, 829 S. V. Levy, 23 Minn. 104, 104 S. V. Lewis, 134 Ind. 250, 273, 274 S. V. Lewis, 48 Iowa 578, 553 S. V. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 326, 330 S. V. Lewis, 19 Kan. 260, 470 S. V. Lewis, 26 Kan. 123, 159 S. V. Lewis, 56 Kan. 374, 727, 861 S. V. Lewis, 49 La. 1207, 116 V. Lewis, 5 Mo. App. 465, 537 S. 16, 22, 834 V. Lewis, 113 N. C. 622, 470 V. Lewis, 50 Ohio St. 179, 684 y. Lewis, 13 S. D. 166, 198 V. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 408, 181 V. Light, 17 Ore. 359, 567 V. Lightfoot, 107 Iowa 344, 229 V. Lightsey, 43 S. C. 114, 47 V. Lilly, 116 N. C. 1049, 309 V. Lilly (W. Va.), 35 S. B. 837, 499 V. Lincoln, 49 N. H. 464, 705 V. Lindley, 14 Ind. 430, 561 V. Lindley, 51 Iowa 343, 830, 831 V. Link, 68 Mo. App. 161, 286 V. Linton, 42 Minn. 32, 528 V. Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 32, 370 V. Liston, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 603, 588 V. Little. 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 267, 567 V. Littschke, 27 Ore. 189, 136 V. Livingstone, 4 Del. Ch. 264, 4 68 V. Lockerby, 50 Minn. 363, 519 V. Lockhart, 24 Ga. 420, 204 V. Locklln, 81 Me. 251, 325 V. Lockwobd, 1 Pen. (Del.) 76, 54 V. Lockwood, 58 Vt. 378, 118 V. Lockwood, 43 Wis. 403, 776 V. Lodge, 9 Houst." (Del.) 542, 34 V. Logan, 1 Mo. 532, 113 xc TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.'i S; V. Logan, 1 Nev. 509, 718 a, V. Logue, 73 Wis, 598, 351 a. V. Long, 103 Ind. 485, 176, 177, 178 S. V. Long, 9 Ired. (N. C.) 488, 528 S. V. Long, 76 N. C. 254, 400 S. V. Long, 78 N. C. 571, 631 E. V. Longley, 10 Ind. 482, 402 . v. Lonsdale, 48 Wis. 348, 437 S. V. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 647 S. V. Lord (Minn.), 79 N. W. 968, 164 S. T. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 91 Tenn. 445, 347 S. V. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. 463, 299 S. V. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 623 8. V. Lowe, 21 W. Va. 783, 653 g; V. Lowry, 42 W. Va. 205, 261, 263, 615 S. V. Lucas, 147 Mo. 70, 715 8. V. Lucas, 124 N. C. 825, 350, 859 a. V. Lucas, 24 Ore. 168, 779 a. V. Luce, 9 Houst. (Del.) 396, 487 8. V. Lucey (Mont.), 61 Pac. 994, 125, 821 S. V. Lumsden, 89 N. C. 572, 575 S. V. Lurch, 12 Ore. 95, 179 S. V. Lusk, 68 Ind. 265, 291 S. V. Luther, 20 R. I. 472, 478 S. V. Lutterloh, 22 Tex. 210, 714 S. V. Lydick, 11 Neb. 366, 370 S. V. Lymus, 26 Ohio St. 400, 102 S. V. Lynch, 7 N. J. L. 153, 324 S. V. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487, 235 S. V. Lyon, 39 Iowa 379, 305, 542 S. V. Lyon, 89 N. C. 568. 334 S. V. Lytle, 117 N. C. 799, 243 S. T. Mace, 76 Me. 64, 408, 418, 702 8. V. Mace, 118 N. C. 1244, 30 S. V. Mack, 41 La. 1079, 305, 542 S. V. Mackey, 82 Iowa 393, 521, 545 8. V. Mackey, 12 Ore. 154, 791, 860, 861 S. v. Macy, 67 Mo. App. 326, 348 S. T. Maddox, 74 Ind. 105, 314 S. V. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425, 412, 824 S. T. Madison, 63 Me. 546, 350 t. V. Ma Foo, 110 Mo. 7, 95 . V. Magee, 11 Indi 155, 166 S. V. Magers, 36 Ore. 38, 865, 886 S. v. Magoon, 50 Vt. 333, 796 S. V. Magrath, 44 N. J. L. 227, 697 S. V. Mahan, 138 Mo. 112, 145 S. V. Maher, 35 Me. 225, 370 g. V. Maher, 77 Mo. App. 401, 286 S. V. Mahly, 68 Mo. 315, 860 S. T. Mahon, 3 Har. (Del.) 568, 52 S. V. Mahoney, 23 Minn. 181, 364, 365 8. V. Main, 31 Conn. 572, 300 8. V. Maine. 27 Conn. 281, 777 8. V. Malcolm, 8 Iowa 413, 46 V. Malloy, 34 N. J. L. 410, 282 V. Malloy, 115 N. C. 737, 339 V. Maloney, 12 E. I. 251, 406 V. Maloy, 44 Iowa 104, 864 V. Mandich, 24 Nev. 336, 131 V. Maney, 54 Conn. 178, 836 T. Mangum, 116 N. C. 998, 162, 175 T. Manicke, 139 Mo. 545, 827 V. Manley, 107 Mo. 364. 137, 150 T. Mansfield, 52 La. 1355, 909 T. Marchant, 15 R. I. 539* 301^ 565, 710 v. Mareks* 140 Mo. 656, 91 v. Marcx), 32 Ore. 175, 136 T. Markins, 95 Ind. 464, 534 v. Marks (N. J. L.), 46 Alt. 757, 710 V. Markuson, 5, N. D. 147, 446 V. Markuson, 7 N. D. 155, 433, 446 V. Marsh, 91 N. C. 633, 221 S. V. Marsh, 70 Vt. 288, 1» V. Marshall, 105 Iowa 38, glfli' V. Marshall, 137 Mo. 463, 552 V. Marshall, 19 Nev. 240, 72* V. Marshall, 45 N. H. 281, 593, 599 V. Marshall, 64 N. H. 549, V. Marshall, Phil. (N. C.) 49, V. Marsteller, 84 N. C. 726, V. Martin, 22 Ark. 420, V. Martin, 31 La. 849, ' V. Martin, 76 Mo. 337, V. Martin, 124 Mo. 514, V. Martin, 68 N. H. 463, V. Martin, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 101, 716, V. Martin, 82 N. C. 672, 113, V. Martin, 85 N. C. 508, V. Martin, 107 N. C. 904, V. Martin, 30 Wis. 223, V. Marvin, 12 Iowa 499, V. Marvin, 35 N. H. 22, V. Mason, 108 Ind. 48, 475 8S^ 491; 672* 312 213 11 577- 134, V. Mason (Mont.) 61 Pac; 861, 333, 21, 411, V. Mason, 26 Ore. 273, V. Mason, 54 S. C. 240, V. Matheis, 44 Mo. App. 294, V. Mathews, 98 Mo. 125, V. Mathews, 148 Mo. 185, V. Mathews, 2 Dev. & B. L. (N. C.) 424, 299, V. Mathews, 42 Vt. 542, V. Matlock, 70 Iowa 229, V. Matlock, 48 La. 663, V. Matlock, 119 N. C. 806, V. Matter, 78 Minn. 377, V. Matthews, 88 Mo. 121, V. Matthews, 148 Mo. 185, V. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450, 428, 429, 446, 450, 452, 453, 454, V. Maxwell, 33 Conn. 259, 298 304 V. Maxwell, 5 Blackf. (Ind'.) 230, V. Maxwell (Iowa), 85 N. W. 613, V. Maxwell, 28 La. 361, V. May, 52 Kan. 53, V. May, 142 Mo. 135, V. Mayberry, 33 Kan. 441, V. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218, 315, 318, 319, 323, V. Mayberry, 9 Wash. 193, V. Mayfleld, 66 Mo. 125, V. McAfee, 107 N. C. 812, V. McAlvon, 40 Me. 133, V. McAndrews, 43 Mo. 470, V. McBeth, 49 Kan. 584, V. McBrayer, 98 N. C. 619, V. McBryde, 97 N. C. 393, V. McCabe, 135 Mo. 450, V. McCahill, 72 Iowa 111, V. McCance, 110 Mo. 398, V. McCanon, 51 Mo. 160, V. McCarter, 98 N. C. 637, V. McCarthy, 17 Minn. 76, V. McCarthy, 41 Minn. 59, V. McCarty, 73 Iowa 51, V. McCarty, 17 R. I. 370, V. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644, V. McChesney, 90 Mo. 120, V. McClain, 49 Kan. 730, V. MeClain, 137 Mo. 307, V. McClain, 156 Mo. 99, V. McClellan, 23 Mont. 532, V. McClintic, 73 Iowa 663, 549, V. McClintock, 8 Iowa 203, 49, 317, 548, 176, 731? 13* 50 228; 672, soli 507 141 91% 3391 71^ 338: 910! s: 302 293! SIS'. 4191 2644 930! 827- 627* 451; 45S< 538! 567' 1561 794< 36l3 3301 837J 3291 15* 2 6851 186i 571 2261 365: 208 271< 3291 517 33 2391 1061 41S! 131 718t 552! 1821 727) 5451 8931 615* 551* 59) TABLE OF CASES. ZCl IReferences are to Pages.} S. v. McClung, 35 W. Va. 280, '■ ' 198, 213, 896 S. V. McCollum. 119 Mo. 469, 11 S. T. McConnell (N. H.), 47 Atl. ~ 267, 289 S, V. McCormack, 56 Iowa 585, 266 S. V. McCormack, 8 Ore. 236, 111, 118 S. V. McCormick, 52 Ind. 169, 417 S. V. McCormick, 57 Kan. 440, 161, 164 S. V. McCormick, 84 Me. 566, 902, 904 S: V. McCoy, 29 La. 598, 726 S. V. McCoy, 42 La. 228, 112 S. V. McCoy, 111 Mo. 517, 727 S. V. McCoy, 89 N. C. 466, 110 S. V. McCoy, 15 Utah 136, 496, 865 S. V. McCracken, 66 Iowa 569, 615 S. V. McCrum, 38 Minn. 154, 64 S. V. McCrystol, 43 La. 907, 391, 392 S. V. McCullough, 1 Pen. (Del.) 274* ' 287 S. V. McCune, 5 E. I. 60, 215 S. V. McCune, 16 Utah 170, 78 S: T. McDaniel, 45 La. 686, 873 S. V. McDaniel, 20 Ore. 523, 563 S; V. McDonald, 106 Ind. 233, 392, 395 S. V. McDonald, 25 Mo. 176, 506 S. V. McDonald, 67 Mo. 13, . 20 S. V. McDonald, 73 N. C. 346, 716 S. V. McDonald, 9 W. Va. 456, 198 S. V. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491, 37 S. V. McDowell, 101 N. C. 734^ 521 S. V. McDuffle, 34 N. H. 523, 102 S. V. McDuffle, 107 N. C. 885, 505 S. V. McBlvain, 35 Ore. 365, — S. V. McEntyre, 3 Ind. 171, 142 S. V. McParlain, 42 La. 803, 829 S. V. McGee, 81 Iowa 17, 830 S. v. McGee, 55 S. C. 247, 900 S. V. McGilTery,20 Wash. 240, 533, 534 S. V. McGinn, 109 Iowa 641, 552 S. v. McGiunis, 37 Ark. 362, 652 S. T. McGlothleu, 56 Iowa 544, 528 S. V. McGonigle, 14 Wash. 594, 3, 37 S. V. McGowan, 20 Conn. 245, 232 S. V. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161, 112 S. V. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407, 299, 301, 540 S. V. McGuire, 87 Iowa 142, 57 S. V. Mclntire, 89 Iowa 139, 550, 553 S. V. Mcintosh, 109 Iowa 209, 829, 766 S. V. Mclntyre, 59 Iowa 264, 712 S. V. Mclntyre, 19 Minn. 93, 496 S. T. McKean, 36 Iowa 343, 379, 619, 837 S. V. McKee, 73 Conn. 18, 557 S. V. McKee, 17 Utah 370, 99, 127 S. V. McKenzie, 42 Me. 392, 262 S. V. McKettrick, 14 S. C. 346, 717 S. V. McKinistry, 100 Iowa 82, 123 S. V. McKinney, 42 Iowa 205, 416 S. T. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 744, 778, 788, 792, 795, 835, 908 . S. T. McKinney, 111 N. C. 683, 44, 859 S. V. McKniglit, 111 N. C. 690, 193, 209 S. V. McMahon, 69 Minn. 265, 926 S. V. McManus, 89 N. C. 555, 308, 314 8. V. McMillan, 20 Mont. 407, 92 S. V. McMurphy, 52 Mo. 251, 829 S. V. McNab, 20 N. H. 160, 38, 500 S. V. McNaught, 36 Kan. 624, 672 S. V. McNeil, 33 La. 1832, 839 S. V. McNeill, 92 N. C. 812, 11 S. V. McNeill, 98 N. C. 552, 706 S. T. McPherson, 9 Iowa 53, 263, 267 S. V. McPherson, 70 N. C. 239, 212, 852 S. y. McEae, 111 N. C. 665, 116 S. T. Meader, 62 Vt. 458, 631 S. V. Meadows, 18 W. Va. 658, 48 S. V. Meaker, 54 Vt. 112, 743 S. V. Mease, 69 Mo. App. 581, 224 S. V. M«che, 42 La. 278, 197, 208 S. V. Mecum, 95 Iowa 433, 204, 779 S. V. Medbury, 8 E. I. 543, 506 S. V. Medllcott, 9 Kan. 257, 23, 26, 27, 29, 772, 804 S. V. Meek, 70 Mo. 355, 496 S. V. Melick, 65 Iowa 614, 847 S. V. Melton, 102 Mo. 683, 628 S. V. Melton, 117 Mo. 618, .514, 874 S. V. Melville, 11 E. L 417, 569 S. V. Mercantile Assn., 45 Kan. 351, 575 S; V. Merrick, 19 Me. 398, 122 S. V. Merrill, 44 N. H. 624, 111, 118 S. V. Merriman, 84 S. C. 16, 828 S. V. Merrlt, 35 Conn. 314, 348 S. V. Merritt, 62 N. C. 134, 47 S. V. Metcalf, 65 Mo. App. 681, 564 S. V. Metcalf, 17 Mont. 417, 16 S. V. Metsch, 37 Kan. 222, 168 S. V. Meyer (N. J. L.), 45 Atl. 779, 47 Atl. 486, 497 S. V. Meyer, 1 Speer (S. C.) 305, 858 S. V. Meyer, 58 Vt. 457, 771, 857, 858 S. V. Meyers, 82 Mo. 558, 178 S. V. Meyers, 46 Neb. 152, 85 S. V. Meyers, 56 Ohio St. 340, 142 S. V. Meyers, 9 Wash. 8, 240 S. v. Middleham, 62 Iowa 150, 626 S. V. Mikie, 94 N. C. 848, 160; 162 S. V. MlkeseU, 70 Iowa 176, 111 S. V. Miles. 89. Me. 142. 388 S. V. Milholland, 89 Iowa 5, 632 S. v. Miller, 68 Conn. 378, 353, 858 S. V. Miller, 9 Houst. .(Del.) 564, 21 S. V. Miller, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 502, 565 S. V. Miller, 158 Ind. 229, 173, 176 S. V. Miller, 65 Iowa 60, 535 S. V. Miller, 83 Iowa 291, 214 S. V. Miller, 36 La. 158, 881 S. V. Miller, 45 Minn. 521, 123 S. V. Miner, 111 Mo. 542, 80 S. T. Miller, 182 Mo. 297, 597 S. V. Miller, 156 Mo. 76, 42 S. V. Miller, 100 N. C. 543, 401 S. V. Miller, 8 M'ash. 181, 202, 212 S. V. Miller, 23 W. Va. 801, 456 S. T. Miller, 42 W, Va. 215, 423, 501 S. V. Millmeir, 102 Iowa 692, 242, 243 S. V. Mills, 19 Ark. 476, 903 S. V. Mills, 17 Me. 211, ■ 167 S. V. Mills, 146 Mo. 195, 248, 258 S. V. Mills, 91 N. C. 595, 26 S. V. Mills, 116 N. C. 1051, 340 S. V. Milsaps, 82 N. C. 549, 49 S. V. Mims, 36 Ore. 315, 837, 901 S. V. Miner, 107 Iowa 656, 122 S. V. Minford, 64 N. J. L. 518, 718 S. V. Minnick, 15 Iowa 125, 588, 596 S. V. Minor, 106 Iowa 642, 131, 776 S. V. Minot, 79 Minn. 118, 220 S. V. Minton, 116 Mo. 610, 247, 263 S. V. Missio, 105 Tenn. 218, 841 S. V. Mitchell, 68 Iowa 116, 85 S. V. Mitchell, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 350, 281, 235 S. V. Mitchell, 56 S. C. 524, 858 S. V. Mitchell (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 845, 704 S. V. Moats, 108 Iowa 18, 167, 179, 182, 883 S. V. Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 825 S. V. Mohr, 68 Mo. .303, 116, 704 S. V. Molier, 1 Dev. (N. C.) 263, 411 xcn TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages.'] S. V. Montgomery, 56 Iowa 195, 167 S. V. Montgomery, 65 Iowa 483, 54, 746 S. V. Montgomery, 71 Iowa 630, 496, 498 S. V. Montgomery, 63 Mo. 296, 742 S. V. Mook, 40 Ohio St. 588, 138 S. V. Moon, 41 Wis. 684, 127, 128 S. V. Mooney, 65 Mo. 494, 410 S. V. Mooney, 62 N. C. 434, 52 S. V. Mooney, 64 N. C. 54, 902 S. V. Moore, 23 Arls. 550, 848 S. V. Moore, 39 Conn. 244, 405 S. T. Moore, 2 Pen. (Del.) 299, 723 S. V. Moore, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 118, 360 S. V. Moore, 25 Iowa 128, 492 S. V. Moore, 78 Iowa 494, 547 S. V. Moore, 81 Iowa 578, 535 S. V. Moore, 38 La. 66, 100 S. V. Moore, 48 La. 380, 772 S. V. Moore, 61 Mo. 276, 235 S. V. Moore, 101 Mo. 316, 120 S. V. Moore, 106 Mo. 480, 220 S. V. Moore, 107 Mo. 78, 377 S. V. Moore, 117 Mo. 395, 193, 204 S. V. Moore, 121 Mo. 514, 680 S. V. Moore, 156 Mo. 135, 744 S. V. Moore, 27 N. J. L. 105, 596 S. V. Moore, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 228, 895 S. T. Moore, 6f N. C. 267, 2 S. V. Moore, 111 N. C. 672, 167, 168, 173 S. V. Moore, 1 Ohio Dec. R. 171, 511 S. T. Moore, 24 S. C. 150, 240 S. V. Moores, 52 Neb. 770, 401 S. v. Mooring, 115 N. C. 709, 687 S. V. Moothart, 109 Iowa 130, 494 495 497 S. V. Mordecal, 68 N. C. 207, ' ' 194 S. V. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 575 S. T. Morey, 2 Wis. 494, 128 S. V. Morgan, 62 Ind. 35, 662, 758 S. T. Morgan, 35 La. 293, 249 S. T. Morgan, 112 Mo. 202, 175 S. V. Morgan, 98 N. C. 461, 233 237 241 S. V. Morgan (Utah), 61 Pac' 527,' 3, 40 S. V. Morgan, 68 Vt. 289, 822 S. V. Morphy, 33 Iowa 270, 630 S. V. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384, 428, 429, 435 S. V. Morris, 47 Conn. 179, 192 S. T. Morris, 104 N. C. 837, 896 S. V. Morrison, 46 Kan. 679, 405 S. V. Morrison, 85 N. C. 561, 118 S. V. Morrissey, 22 Iowa 158, 199, 203 V. Morrow, 40 S. C. 221, 493, 494, 506, 666, 774, 819 T. Morse, 52 Iowa 509, 401 V. Morse, 90 Mo. 91, 420 T. Morse, 35 Ore. 462, 768 T. Morton, 27 Vt. 310, 257 V. Morton, 8 Wis. 352, 262 T. Mosby, 53 Mo. App. 571, 571, 675 V. Moseley, 38 Mo. 380, , 131 V. Moses, 139 Mo. 217, 881, 886 V. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355, 639, 910 V. Mott, 45 N. J. L. 494, 333 V. Moultrie, 33 La. 1146, 118 V. Mowry, 37 Kan. 369, 623, 687 V. Moxley, 102 Mo. 374, 872, 910 V. Mueller, 85 Wis. 203, 76 V. Muir, 32 Kan. 481, 905 T. Mullen, 30 Iowa 203, 119 V. Mullen, 35 Iowa 207, 300, 538 V. Mullikin, 8 Blackt. (Ind.) 260, 301 V. Mullins, 67 Ark. 422, 377 S. V. Munch, 22 Minn. 67, 143, 150 S. V. Munday, 78 N. C. 460, 159, 163, 165, 166 S. V. Mundy, 2 Maw. (Del.) 429; 597, 599 S. V. Munger, 15 Vt. 294, 376 S, V. Munson, 40 Conn. 475, 384 S. V. Munson, 7 Wash. 239, 210 S. v. Murdoch, 71 Me. 454, , 365 S. V. Murdy, 81 Iowa 603, 32, 866 S. V. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765, 114, 318, 319 S. V. Murphy, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 498, 101 S. V. Murphy, 27 N. J. L. 112, 485 S. T. Murphy, 84 N. C. 742, 825 S. V. Murphy, 101 N. C. 697, 413 S. T. Murphy, 17 R. I. 698, 262 S. V. Murphy, 9 Wash. 204, 728 S. V. Murphy, 13 Wash. 229, 673 S. V. Murray, 15 Me. 100, 469, 470 S. V. Mushrush, 97 Iowa 444, 327 S. V. Muslck, 101 Mo. 260, 859 S. V. Myers, 10 Iowa 448, 252, 257 S. V. Myers, 19 Iowa 517, 47, 48 S. V. Myers, 44 Iowa 58(), 459, 879 S. V. Myers, 54 Kan. 206, 137 S. V. Mylod, 20 R. I. 632, 482 S. V. Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 509, 514, 516 S. V. Nagel, 136 Mo. 45, 881 S. V. Nagle, 14 R. I. 331, 384, 751 S. V. Napper, 141 Mo. 401, 545 S. V. Nash, 7 Iowa 347, 23 S. V. Nash, 86 N. C. 650, 47 S. V. Nash, 109 N. C. 824, 75 S. T. Nathaniel, 52 La. 558, 433, 445, 446, 458, 459, 464, 726 S. T. Neal, 37 Me. 468, 52 S. V. Neal, 42 Mo. 119, 419 S. V. Neal, 120 N. C. 613, 222, 223 S. V. Neal, 129 N. C. 613, 229 S. V. Neel, 21 Utah 151, 83 S. V. Neely, 74 N. C. 425, 77 S. V. Neff, 58 Ind. 516, 53 S. V. Neimeler, 66 Iowa 636, 164, 177 S. T. Nelson, 29 Me; 329, 111, 187 S. V. Nelson, 66 Minn. 166, 476 S. V. Nelson, 74 Minn. 409, 421 S. V. Nelson, 79 Minn. 373, 151, 701 S. T. Nelson, 146 Mo. 256, 417 S. V. Nesbit, 8 Kan. App. 104, 353 S. V. Nettles, 153 Mo. 464, 882 S. V. New, 22 Minn. 76, 140, 149 S. V. Newberry, 43 Mo. 429, 287 S. V. Newbury, 122 N. C. 1077, 282 S. V. Newby, 64 N. C. 23, 224 S. v. Newcomer, 59 Kan. 668, 77 S. V. Newell, 58 N. H. 314, 440 S. V. Newland, 7 Iowa 242, 258 S. V. Newman, 57 Kan. 705, 834 S. V. Newton, 59 Ind. 173, 645 S. V. Newton, 62 Ind. 517, 464 S. V. Newton, 44 Iowa 45, 63, 78 S. V. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469, 474 S. V. Newton, 42 Vt. 537, 118 S. V. NichoUs, 37 La. 779, 896 S. V. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357, 519, 528 S. V. Nichols, 15 Wash. 1, 336 S. V. Nicholson, 124 N. C. 820, 214, 215 S. V. Nles, 107 N. C. 820, 896 S. V. Nlles, 47 Vt. 82, 83, 84 S. V. Nine, 105 Iowa 131, 173, 175 S. V. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205, 622 S. T. Nixon, 18 Vt. 70, 539 S. V. Noble, 70 Iowa 174, 520 S. V. Noble, 15 Me. 476, 92 S. T. Nocton, 121 Mo. 538, 27 S. V. Noel, 61 Kan. 857, 16 TABLE OF CASES. XCIU [References are to Pages.l S. V. Noland, 111 Mo. 473, 136, 143, 147, 149, 634 S. v. Norrls. 59 N. H. 536, 290 S. V. Norton, 9 Houst. (Del.) 586, 568 S. V. Norton, 89 Me. 290, 334 S. V. Norton, 76 Mo. 180, 177 S. V. Norton, 23 N. J. L. 33, 657 S. V. Norvell, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 24, 906 S. V. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 901 S. V. Nowell, 58 N. H. 314, 439 S. V. Nowlan, 64 Me. 531, 896 Sf V. Noyes, 25 Vt. 415, 316, 318 S. V. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340, 695 S. V. Nugent, 20 Wash. 522, 531 S. V. Nute, 63 N. H. 79, 153 S. V. Oakley, 51 Ark. 112, 114 S. V. Oakley, 103 N. C. 408, 177 S. T. O'Bannon, 1 Baidey (S. C.) 144, 64 S. V. Ober, 52 N. H. 459, 750, 786 S. V. O'Brien, 2 Root (Conn.) 516, 233 Sf V. O'Brien, 81 Iowa 88, 193, 803 S. V. O'Brien, 7 R. I. 338, 838 S. V. O'Brien, 94 Tenn. 79, 147 S. V. O'Connell, 144 Mo. 387, 115, 116 S. V. O'Connor, 38 Minn. 243, 923 S. V. O'Connor, 65 Mo. App. 324, 364 S. v. Odel, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 552, 263 S. V. O'DonneU, 36 Ore. 222, 826 S. T. O'Donnell, 10 R. I. 472, 710 S. V. OCEutt, 4 Biackf. (Ind.) 355, 411 S. V. O'Hara, 92 Mo. 59, 7 S. V. Ohmer, 34 Mo. App. 115, 356 S. T. O'Kean, 35 La. 901, 134, 146 S. V. O'Keefe, 141 Mo. 271, 547, 553 S. V. Olds, 19 Ore. 397, 735 S. V. Oliver, 2 Houst. (Del.) 585, 24, 687 S. V. Olson, 108 Iowa 667, 547 S: V. O'Nell, 51 Kan. 665, 824 S. V. O'Nell, 71 Minn. 399, 218 S. V. O'Nell, 58 Vt. 140, 367, 373, 385 S. V. Oppenhelmer, 41 Tex. 82, 420 S. V. O'Reilly, 126 Mo. 597, 316, 322 325, 326, 330, 840 S. V. O'Rourk, 35 Neb. 614, 353 S. V. Orrick, 106 Mo. Ill, 755 ■" V. Orwig, 24 Iowa 102, 138 V. Osborn, 54 Kan. 473, 333 V. Osgood, 85 Me. 288, 539 V. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 25, 29 V. Ostrander, 18 Iowa 456, 50 V. Oswald, 59 Kan. 508, 561 V. Otis, 135 Ind. 267, 545 v. Otto, 61 Kan. 58, 770 V. Overseer, 24 N. J. L. 533, 521, 522 V. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 64, 65, 66, 67 V. Overton, 16 Nev. 136, 575 V. Owen, 78 Mo. 367, 671 V. Owen, 72 N. C. 611, 419, 773 V. Owens, 22 Minn. 238, 493, 495 V. Owsley, 111 Mo. 450, 204 V. Packer, 80 N. C. 439, 361 V. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 623, 726 V. Paine Lumber Co., 84 Wis. 205, 346 V. Painter, 50 Iowa 317, 549 V. Painter, 67 Mo. 85, 900 V. Palmer, 50 Kan. 318, 159, 172, 173 V. Palmer, 79 Minn. 428, 327 V. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568, 625 V. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216, 825 V. Palmer, 20' Wash. 207, 114 V. Pamperin, 42 Minn. 320, 372 V. Pankey, 104 N. C. 840, 726 y. Pardee, 37 Ohio St. 63, 184 V. Parish, Busb. L. (N.C.) 239, 35 V. Parish, 79 N. C. 610, 788 V. Park, 57 Kan. 431, 410 V. Parker, 66 Iowa 586, 56, 679 V. Parker, 89 Me. 81, 276 V. Parker, 39 Mo. App. 116, 293 V. Parker, 43 N. H. 83, 323, 324 V. Parker, 75 N. C. 249, 52 V. Parks, 61 N. J. L. 438, 302 V. Parrott, 71 N. C. 311, 491 V. Parry, 48 La. 1483, 120 V. Parsons, 39 W. Va. 464, 809 V. Patch, 21 Mont. 534, 256 V. Paterno, 43 La. 514, 670 V. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 84, 85, 86, 87 V. Patterson, 42 La. 934, 218 V. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695, 810 V. Patterson, 88 Mo. 88, 543 V. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505, 632, 679, 900, 918 V. Patterson, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 346, 509, 790 V. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 21, 24, 28, 626, 628, 870 V. Patton, 1 Mary. (Del.) 554, 101, 114, 127 V. Paul, 81 Iowa 596, 284 V. Paul, 69 Me. 215, 169, 173, 701 V. Paul, 56 Neb. 369, 483 V. Payne, 10 Wash. 545, 21 V. Peach, 70 Vt. 283, 199 V. Peacock, 40 Ohio St. 333, 626 V. Pearce, 14 Fla. 153, 390 v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 23, 26, 33, 497 V. Pearce, 15 Nev. 188, 830 V. Pearls, 35 W. Va. 320, 589, 594 V. Pearsall, 43 Iowa 630, 302, 540 V. Pearson, 2 N. H. 550, 279 V. Pearson, 97 N. C. 434, 593 V. Pease, 74 Ind. 263, 850 V. Peden, 2 Biackf. (Ind.) 371, 227 V. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 863 V. Peeples, 108 N. C. 768, 520 V. Pendergrass, 19 N. C. 365, 53 V. Penley, 27 Conn. 587, 163, 172 V. Pennington, 146 Mo. 27, 624, 625 V. Pennington, 41 W. Va. 599, 533 V. Penny, 70 Iowa 190, 176 V. Pennyman, 68 Iowa 216, 834 V. Peo, 1 Pen. (Del.) 528, 368 V. Pepo, 23 Mont. 473, 42, 858 V. Pepper, 68 N. C. 259, 487 V. Perigo, 80 Iowa 37, 26, 29, 30 V. Perique, 42 La. 403, 725 V. Perkins, 40 La. 210, 744 V. Perkins, 43 La. 186, 405 V. Perkins, 53 N. H. 435, 379 V. Perkins, 1 Ohio Dec. B. 55, 199 V. Perkins, 42 Vt. 399, 589 V. Perley, 86 Me. 427, 217, 220 V. Perry, 109 Iowa 353, 406 V. Perry, 5 Jones (N. C.) 9, 296 V. Perry, 120 N. C. 580, 310 V. Peters, 56 Iowa 263, 76 V. Peters, 107 N. C. 876, 423 V. Peters, 43 Ohio St. 629, 651 V. Peters, 57 Vt. 86, 420 V. Peterson, 110 Iowa 647, 84, 838 V. Peterson, 2 La. 921, 736 V. Peterson, 61 Minn. 73, 718 V. Petit, 74 Minn. 376, 355 V. Petsch, 43 S. C. 132, 28 V. Pettaway, 3 Hawks (N. C.) 623, 521 V. Petty, 119 Mo. 425, 169 xciv TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.'] s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. R. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s, T. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. S. T. Pettys, 61 Kan. 860, 897 Pfennlngei-, 76 Mo. App. 313, 554 Phalen, 65 Mo. 547, 55 Phares, 24 W. Va. 657, 882 Phelps, 74 Mo. 136, 813 Phelps, 91 Mo. 478, 122 Phelps, 22 Wash. 181, 77, 81, 92 Phifer, 65 N. C. 325, 158, 106 Phifer, 90 N. C. 721, 234, 239 Philbin, 38 La. 964, 241 Philbrtck, 84 Me. 562, 589 Philley, 67 Ind. 304, 47 Phillips, 104 N. C. 786, 50, 675 Philpot, 97 Iowa 365, 772, 779, 800 Phlnney, 42 Me. 384, 900 Phippen, 62 Iowa 54, 416 Phipps, 95 Iowa 491, 223 Phipps, 34 Mo. App. 400, 406 Pickett, 78 N. C. 458, 173 Pickett, 118 N. C. 1231, 406 Pierce, 8 Iowa 231, 253 Pierce, 65 Iowa 85, 299, 301, 872 Pierce, 7 Kan. App. 418, 150 Pierce, 123 N. C. 745, 241 Pierce, 26 Tex. 114, 57 Pike, 33 Me. 361, 225 Pilkington, 92 Iowa 92, 92 Pippin, 88 N. C. 646, 507, 534 Pirlot, 20 K. I. 273, 482 Pitts, 156 Mo. 247, 744 Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 537, 538, 540, 541, 799 Plummer, 50 Me. 217, 415, 421 Pohlmeyer, 59 Ohio St. 491, 147 Poison, 29 Iowa 133, 751 Pomeroy, 25 Kan. 349, 31 Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489, 571, 576 Pope, 109 N. C. 849, Porter, 88 Ark. 637, Porter, 34 Iowa 131, Porter, 97 Iowa 450, . Porter, 105 Iowa 677, Porter, 48 La. 1539, Porter, 26- Mo. 201, Porter, 75 Mo. 172, Porter, 90 N. C. 719, Porter, 101 N. C. 713, Porter, 112 N. C. 887, Porter, 25 W. Va. 685, Portland, 74 Me. 268, Poteet, 86 N. C. 612, Potter, 18 Com. 166, Potter, 28 Iowa 554, Potter, 30 Iowa 587, Potter, 13 Kan. 414, Potter, 15 Kan. 302, Potter, 16 Kan. 80, Potter, 108 Mo. 424, Potter, 42 Vt. 495, Potter. 52 Vt. 33, Potts, 75 N. C. 129, Powell, 34 Ark. 693, Powell, 61 Kan. 81, 193, 204, 205 Powell, 70 N. C. 67, 487, 490 Powell, 94 N. C. 965, 208 Powell, 103 N. C. 424, 99 Powell, 121 N. C. 635, 319 Powell, 58 Ohio St. 324, 353 Powers, 36 Conn. 77, 300 Powers, 52 La. 1254, 911 Powers, 51 N. J. L. 432, 784 Powers, 12 Ired. (N. 0.) 5, 852 Prather, 136 Mo. 20, 91 Pratt, 98 Mo. 482, 147 Pratt, 121 Mo. 566, 828 Pratt, 34 Vt. 323, 379 508 538 30, 804, 867 207, 211 422, 423 82 469 159 239, 240 58 223, 226 321 488 369 813 323 538 833 856 736 885 836 508 194 108 s. T. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. Prescott, 33 N. H. 212, 56t Preston (Idaho), 38 Pac. 694, 909 Price, 37 La. 215, 241, 901 Priester, 43 Minn. 373, 364 Primeaux, 39 La. 673, 726 Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 544, 550 Prince, 47 La. 817, 283 Pritchard, 107 N. C. 921, 399 Prizer, 49 Iowa 531, 549 Proctor, 90 Mo. 334, 346 Prude, 76 Mass. 543, 16 Pnuett, 144 Mo. 92, 535 Pruett, 61 Mo. App. 156, 227 Pryor, 30 Ind. 350, 159 Pugsley, 75 Iowa 744, 581, 667, 801, 863 Pujo, 41 La. 346, Punshon, 133 Mo. 44, 672 763, 769, 817 Purdie, 67 N. C. 326, 228 Purdy, 36 Wis. 213, 589 Quarles, 13 Ark. 307, 439, 440 Queen, 91 N. C. 659, 741 Quinn, 2 Pen. (Del.) 339, 495 Rairorf, 64 N. J. L. 412, 362 Ramsey, 50 La. 1339, 768 Rand, 51 N. H. 361, 198, 368 Rankin, 3 S. C. 438, 487, 489 Ransell, 41 Conn. 433, 286 Rawles, 65 N. C. 334, 77 Ray, 153 Ind. 334, 322 Ray, 79 Iowa 765, 202, 205 Raymond, 156 Mo. 117, 744 Raymond, 12 Mont. 226, 572 Raymond, 53 N. J. L. 260, 244 Ready, 44 Kan. 697, 217 Reasby, 109 Iowa 231, 220 Reavis, 71 Mo. 419. 125, 871 Reavis, 113 N. C. 677, 47 Reddick, 7 Kan. 143, 623, 834, 899 Reddick, 2 S. D. 124, 134, 143 Redman, 17 Iowa 329, 131 Redstrake, 39 N. J. L. 365, 247, 253 Reece, 27 W. Va. 375, 199, 708 Reed, 45 Ark. 333, 494 Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 27 Reed, 41 La. 582, 621 Reed, 50 La. 990, 39 Reed, 62 Me. 129, 788 Reed, 76 Miss. 211, 294 Reed, 117 Mo. 604, 865 Reed, 137 Mo. 125, 23, 25, 37 Reed. 153 Mo. 451, 553 Reed, 154 Mo. 122, 626 Reed. 47 N. H. 466, 765 Reedy, 44 Kan. 190, 531 Reese, 83 N. C. 637, 174 Reeves, 97 Mo. 668, 552 Regan, 8 Wash. 506, 795 Reid, 20 Iowa 413, 193, 726 Reidel, 26 Iowa 430, 160 Reinhart, 26 Ore. 466, 148, 152, 153, 674 Reinheimer, 109 Iowa 624, 549, 551, 552, 886 Renick, 33 Ore. 584, 157, 166 Reno, 41 Kan. 674, 865 Reonnals, 14 La. 278, 112 Repp, 104 Iowa 305, 101 Revely, 145 Mo. 660, 7 Reyelts. 74 Iowa 499, 381 Reynolds, 106 Mo. 146, 175 Rheams, 34 Minn. 18, 626, 778, 844 Rhodes, 111 N. C. 647, 243 Rhodes, 112 N. C. 857, 671 TABLE OF CASES. XCV [References are to Pages.} V. Rice, 149 Mo. 461, 726 V. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 921, 922 V. Richardson, 117 Mo. 586, 61 V. Richardson, 38 N. H. 208, 54 V. Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 917 V. Ridge, 125 N. C. 655, 173, 255 V. Riggs, 39 Conn. 498, 340 V. Rigsby, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 554, 726 V. Rinehart, 106 N. C. 787, 506, 508 V. Ring, 29 Minn. 78, 141 V. Ripiey, 31 Me. 386, 316, 318, 320, 322, 323 V. Ritchie, 107 N. C. 857, 470, 471 V. Rivers, 58 Iowa 102, 125, 178, 179, 198, 200, 204, 633 V. Rivers, 2 Ohio Dec. R. 102, 193 V. Roach, 11 Mont. 227, 220 V. Roanoke R. & L. Co., 109 N. C. 860, 350 V. Robbing, 124 Ind. 308, 571, 573 V. Robbins, 6 Ired. (N. C.) 23, 510 V. Robbins, 123 N. C. 730, 279, 280, 898 V. Roberts, 2 Mary. (Del.) 450, 333 337 V. Roberts, 34 Me. 320, ' 323 V. Roberts, 52 N. H. 492, 405, 407 V. Roberts, 15 Ore. 187, 243 V. Roberts, 22 Wash. 1, 418 V. Robertson, 50 La. 92, 17, 626 V. Robertson, 86 N. C. 628, 305, 306 . y. Robertson, 121 N. C. 551, 551 . y. Robertson, 32 Tex. 159, 212 . V. Robinson, 43 La. 383, 777 . V. Robinson, 46 La. 769. 676 . V. Robinson, 52 La. 616, 862 . V. Robinson, 33 Me. 564, 655 . V. Robinson, 55 Minn. 169, 483 . V. Robinson, 29 N. H. 274, 268, 711 y. Robinson, 16 ,N. J. L. 507, 263 Robinson, 32 Ore. 43, 87, 797 V. Robinson, 35 S. C. 340, 208 V. Roby, 8 Nev. 312, 56 V. Roche, 37 Mo. App. 480, 227 V. Rodman, 62 Iowa 456, 821 V. Rodrigues, 45 La. 1040, 726 . V. Roe,. 12 Vt. 93, 237 . V. Rogan, 18 Wash. 43, 547 . y. Rogers, 54 Kan. 683, 196 . V. Rogers, 39 Mo. 431, 376 . y. Rogers, 108 Mo. 202, 545, 790 . y. Rogers, 94 N. C. 860, 239 . v. Rohfrischt, 12 La. 382, 235 . V. Rollins, 77 Me. 120, 659 . V. Rollins, 22 N. H. 528, 773 y. Rollins, 113 N. C. 722, 817 V. Romaine, 58 Iowa 46, 522 y. Romans, 21 Wash. 284, 586 V. Rood, 12 yt. 396, 502 y. Root. 5 N. D. 487, 436, 448, 451 y. Roper, 88 N. C. 656, 232, 245 V. Rose, 47 Minn. 47, 10, 246, 256, 263, 830, 858 y. Rosecrans, 9 N. D. 163, V. Ross, 21 Iowa 467, V. Ross, 25 Mo. 426, V. Ross, 29 Mo. 32, y. Roswell, 6 Conn. 446, v. Round, 82 Mo. 679, V. Row, 81 Iowa 138, V. Rowe, 142 Mo. 439, V. Rowe, 98 N. C. 629, V. Ruby, 68 Me. 543, V. Rudd, 97 Iowa 389, V. Rue, 72 Minn. 296, V. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447, 121 665 634 672 515 62 839 898 198 638 92 136, 138, 153 62, 63, 64 S. V. Rush. 95 Mo. 199, 115 S. T. Rushing, 69 N. C. 29, 189 S. V. RusseU, 1 Houst. Cr. (Del.) 122, 685 S. V. Russell (Iowa), 76 N. W. 653, 404 S. V. Russell, 33 La. 135, 750 S. V. Russell, 69 Minn. 502, 377, 696 S. V. Russell, 13 Mont. 164, 27 S. y. Russell, 45 N. H. 83, 343, 344 S. V. Russell, 91 N. C. 624, 55 S. V. Ruth, 21 Kan. 583, 75 S. V. Rutherford, 152 Mo; 124, 862 S. V. Ruthven, 58 Iowa 121, 467 S. V. Rutten, 13 Wash. 203, 769 S. V. Ryan (Iowa), 85 N. W. 813, 205 S. V. Ryan, 81 Me. 107, 488 S. V. Ryan, 78 Minn. 218, 527 S. y. Sadler, 51 La. 1397, 27, 624 S. V. Sales, 2 Nev. 268, 397 S. V. Samuels, 111 Mo. 566, 153 S. V. Samuels, 144 Mo. 68, 258 S. y. Sanders, 30 Iowa 582, 502 S. V. Sandy, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 576, 231 S. V. Sanford, 124 Mo. 484, 85, 89 S. V. Sangford, 55 S. C. 322, 202 S. v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28, 472 S. V. Sargent, 32 Ore. 110, 85 S. y. Sarony, 95 Mo. 349, 162 S. V. Sarvis, 45 Cal. 668, 235 S. y. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234, 742 S. V. Saunders, 84 N. C. 728, 831 S. V. Saunders, 14 Ore. 300, 23, 24 S. V. Saurbaugh, 122 Ind. 208, 358 S. V. Sauvinet, 24 La. 119, 465 S. y. Savage, 36 Ore. 191, 735, 770, 850 S. v. Savoye, 48 Iowa 562. 323 S. V. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488. 771, 772, 786 S. V. Scanlan, 58 Mo. 204, 785 S. y. Schaeffer, 116 Mo. 96, 622 S. y. Schafifer, 74 Iowa 704, 301, 538, 540 S. v. Schaffer, 95 Iowa 379, 581 S. V. Scheele, 57 Conn. 307, 626, 628 S. V. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386, 292 S. y. Schill, 27 Iowa 263, 415 S. y. Schingeu, 20 Wis. 74, 106 S. V. Schleagel. 50 Kan. 325, 829 S. V. Schlottman, 52 Mo. 164, 289 S. y. Schmidt, 73 Iowa 469, 23, 27, 33 S. V. Schmidt, 136 Mo. 644, 3 S. V. Schmitt, 49 N. J. L. 579, 332 S. y. Schnepel, 23 Mont. 523, 858 S. y. Schuchmann, 133 Mo. Ill, 196, 204 S. y. Schuerman, 70 Mo. App. 518, 496 S. v. Schuman, 36 Ore. 16, 275,. 744 S. V. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499, 377 S. V. Scott, 48 Iowa 597, S. V. Scott, 49 La. 253, S. y. Scott, 78 Minn. 311, S. V. Scott, 28 Ore. 331, S. y. Scott, 24 Vt. 127, S. V. Scripture, 42 N. H. 485, 193, 712, 897 S. V. Seals, 16 Ind. 352, 514 S. V. Seamons, 1 Greene (Iowa) 418, 54, 55 S. y. Sears, 86 Mo. 169, 47 S. V. Security Banlj, 2 S. D. 538, 712 S. v. Seely, 30 Ark. 162, 715 S. V. Seery, 95 Iowa 652, 404 S. V. Seevers, 108 Iowa 738, 525, 527 S. V. Segermond, 40 Kan. 107, 217 S. y. Sellers, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 368, 142 S. y. Setter, 57 Conn. 461, 318 100 621, 622 421 836 51 XCVI TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.'] S. V. Severson, 79 Iowa 750, 519, 522, 672 S. V. Sexton, 147 Mo. 89, 7 S. v. Seymour (Idaho), 61 Pac. 1033, 787 S, V, Seymour, 94 Iowa 699, 38, 824 S. V. Seymour, 36 Me. 225, 192 S. V. Sliackelford, 148 Mo. 493, 771 S. V. Shadd, 80 Mo. 358, 147 S. V. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271, 159, 181 S. V. Shaffer, 59 Iowa 290, 205 S. V. Shaffer, 23 Ore. 555, 26, 32, 33 S. V. Shaffner, 2 Pen. (Del.) 171, 331 333 S. T. Sharo, 106 Mo. 106, lie', 850 S. V. Sharp, 132 Mo. 165, 544 S. V. Shaw, 31 Me. 523, 232 S. V. Shaw, 117 N. C. 764, 419 S. V. Shaw, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 32, 589 594 S. V. Shean, 32 Iowa 88, 67, 550 S. V. Sheeley, 15 Iowa 404, 591 S. v. Shelton, 2 Jones L. (N. C.) 360, 28 S. T. Shelton, 47 N. C. 364, 25 S. V. Shelton, 90 Tenn. 539, 115, 203 S. V. Shelton, 16 Wash. 590, 379 S. V. Shenton, 22 Minn. 311, 708 S. V. Shepard, 7 Conn. 54, 76, 854 S. V. Shepard, 10 Iowa 126, 49 S. V. Sherburne, 59 N. H. 99, 407 S. V. Sherman, 106 Iowa 684, 76, 78 S V. Sherman, 50 Mo. 265, 372 S. T. Sherman, 55 Mo. 83, 108 S. V. Sherrard, 117 N. C. 716, 289 S. V. Sherrill, 95 N. C. 663, 169 S. V. Sherwood, 75 Ind. 15, 495 S. T. Shields, 45 Conn. 256, 75 S. V. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 201, 712 S. V. Shields, 110 N. C. 497, 50, 55 S. V. Shields, 13 S. D. 464, 220 S. V. Shines, 125 N. C. 730, 245 S. T. Shipman, 81 N. C. 513, 52 V. Shippey, 10 Minn. 224, 58 V. Shock, 68 Mo. 552, 7 V. Shoemaker, 62 Iowa 343, 521 V. Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 208 Short, 54 Iowa 392, 198, 199 V. Shuford, 69 N. C. 486,' 41, 822 V. Shumate, 44 W. Va. 490, 366 T. Shuster, 63 N. J. L. 355, 385 V. Shutee, 41 Tex. 548, 567 v. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519, 545 V. Sibley, 132 Mo. 102, 553 V. Silk, 145 Mo. 240, 7, 19 V. Simpson, 38 La. 23, 754 v. Simpson, 28 Minn. 66, 680 v. Simpson, 67 Mo. 647, 751 V. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 444, 688 V. Simms, 68 Mo. 305, 728 V. Simon, 50 Mo. 370, 27 V. Simons, 61 Kan. 752, 776 V. Simons, 70 N. C. 336, 118 T. Simons, 4 Strob. (S. C.) 266, 330 V. Simons, 30 Vt. 620, 522 V. Sivils, 105 Mo. 530, 899 V. Skidmore, 87 N. C. 509, 96 V. Skinner, 76 Iowa 147, 715 T. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 364, 694, 699, 706. 720, 761, 765 V. Skinner, 29 Ore. 599, 108 T. Skolfield, 86 Me. 149, 277 T. Slagle, 82 N, C. 653, 493 V. Slingerland, 19 Nev. 185, 100, 845 V. Sloan, 55 Iowa 217, 517, 641 V. Sloan, 22 Mont. 293, 624 V. Sly, 4 Ore. 277, 669 s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. S. V. S. V. S. v. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. T. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. T. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. V. S. T. S. V. S. V. Small, 26 Kan. 209, 116, 15* Small, 80 Me. 452, 362 Small, 11 S. C. 262, 394 Smalley, 50 Vt. 736, 72S Smallwood, 68 Mo. 192, 694 Smallwood, 75 N. C. 104, 787, 798 Smily, 37 Ohio St. 30, 331 Smith, 65 Conn. 283, 861 Smith, 9 Houst. (Del.) 588, 75, 76, 830 Smith, 8 Blaekf. (Ind.) 489, 159 17S Smith, 46 Iowa 760, ' 285 Smith, 48 Iowa 595, 100 Smith, 54 Iowa 743, 525, 551, 552 Smith, 82 Iowa 423, 487, 488, 491 Smith, 99 Iowa 26, 497 Smith, 108 Iowa 440, 507 Smith, 13 Kan. 274, 655 Smith, 35 Kan. 618, 818 Smith, 44 Kan. 75, 744 Smith, 57 Kan. 657, 139, 140 Smith, 5 La. 340, 200 Smith, 47 La. 432, 136 Smith, 32 Me. 369, 38, 59, 853 Smith, 61 Me. 386, 707 Smith, 65 Me. 257,' » Smith, 29 Minn. 193, 541 Smith, 47 Minn. 475, 524 Smith, 78 Minn. 362, 42 Smith (Minn.), 85 N. W. 12, 183 Smith, 31 Mo. 120, 850 Smith, 33 Mo. 139, 900 Smith, 37 Mo. 58, 190 Smith, 53 Mo. 267, 862, 866 Smith, 66 Mo. 97, 20 Smith, 137 Mo. 25, 586 Smith, 10 Nev. 106, 891 Smith, 1 N. H. 346, 687 Smith, 18 N. H. 91, 40i Smith, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 402, 743 Smith, 75 N. C. 306, 748 Smith, 100 N. C. 550, 351 Smith, 119 N. C. 856, 416 Smith, 11 Ore. 205, 406 Smith, 15 E. I. 24, 537, 538 Smith, 17 R. I. 371, 557, 558, 703 Smith, 56 S. C. 378, 726 Smith, Meigs. (Tenn.) 99, 560 Smith, 52 Wis. 135, 349 Sneed, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 450, 713 Sneff, 22 Neb. 481, 198 Snell, 9 E. I. 112, 134, 143 Snell, 46 Wis. 524, 124 Snider, 34 W. Va. 83, 563 Snow, 18 Me. 346, 342 Snyder, 14 Ind. 429, 291 Snvder, 66 Ind. 203, 181 Somerville, 21 Me. 14, 116 Sommers, 60 Minn. 90, 670, 675, 677 Somnier, 33 La. 237, 25 Soper, 16 Me. 293, 743 Soper, 148 Mo. 217, 763 Sorrell, 98 N. C. 738, 379 Sorter, 52 Kan. 531, 795 Soule, 8 Eob. (La^) 500, 451 Southall, 77 Minn. 296, 167, 171 Spalding, 19 Conn. 233, 263 Sparks, 60 Ind. 298, 227 Sparks, 78 Ind. 166, 469 Sparks, 27 Tex. 705, 462 Sparrow, 2 Tayl. (N. C.) 93, 710 Spaulding, 24 Kan. 1, 136, 142 Spaulding, 60 Vt. 228, 765 Spayde, 110 Iowa 726, 676 Spear, 63 N. J. L. 179, 569 TABLE OF CASES. XCVU [References are to Pages.'] S. V. Spear, 13 R. I. 324, 332 S. V. Spears, 46 La. 1524, 628, 630 S. V. Speight, 69 N. C. 72, 191 S. V. Speller, 86 N. C. 697, 309, 311 S. V. Spencer, 45 La. 1, 410 S. V. Spencer, 21 N. J. L. 196, 623 S. V. Spidle, 44 Kan. 439, 401 S. V. Spink, 19 R. I. 353, 229 S. V. Sprague, 149 Mo. 409, 128 S. V. Spray, 113 N. C. 686, 290, 292, 896 S. V. Spurbeck, 44 Iowa 667, 490 S. T. Squaires, 2 Nev. 236, 234 S. T. Squires, 26 Iowa 345, 645 S. T. Stacks (Miss.), 26 So. 962, 375 S. V. Stafford, 67 Me. 125, 369 S. V. Stafford, 113 N. C. 635, 53 S. T. Stair, 87 Mo. 268, 327, 818 S. v. Stalcup, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 30, 53 S. v. Staley, 45 W. Va. 792, 865 S. V. Stamey, 71 N. C. 202, 377 S. T. Stank, 10 W. L. B. (Ohio) 17, 512 ~ V. Stanley, 33 Iowa 526, 19 V. Stanley, 109 Iowa 142, 216 V. Stanley, 42 La. 978, 899 v. Stanley, 64 Me. 157, 162, 166 V. Starues, 97 N. C. 423, 884 T. Starr, 67 Me. 242, 361 V. Start, 60 Kan. 256, 770 v. Startup, 39 N. J. L. 423, 633 V. Stearns, 28 Ore. 262, 149 V. Stebbens, 29 Conn. 463, 721, 836, 898 V. Steele, 106 N. C. 766, 54 V. Steeves, 29 Ore. 85, 767 V. Steifle, 13 Iowa 603, 913 V. Stelly, 48 La. 1478, 113 T. Stephenson, 83 Ind. 246, 395 v. Sterling, 34 Iowa 443, 326 T. Stevens, 103 Ind. 55, 680 V. Stevens, 30 Iowa 391, 815, 323 V. Stevens, 56 Kan. 720, 89 V. Stevens, 62 Me. 284, 114 V. Stevens, 114 N. C. 873, 372, 669 V. Stevens, 69 Vt. 411, 276 V. Stevenson, 91 Me. 107, 148 V. Stevenson, 68 Vt. 529, 496 V. Stewart, 6 Conn. 47, 232 V. Stewart, 1 Pen. (Del.) 433, 217 221 V. Stewart, 89 N. C. 563, ' 777 V. Stewart, 91 N. C. 566, 346 V. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 319, 322, 325, 705 V. Stewart, 60 Wis. 587, 919 V. Stice. 88 Iowa 27, 825 V. Stickley, 41 Iowa 232, 622 V. Stlckney, 53 Kan. 308, 198, 730 V. Stinson, 124 Mo. 447, 218 V. St. Louis Club, 125 Mo. 308, 366 V. Stogsdale, 67 Mo. 630, 567 V. Stokes, 54 Vt. 179, 496 V. Stoller, 38 Iowa 321, 136 V. Stone, 40 Iowa 547, 142, 400 V. Stone. 68 Mo. 101, 100, 107 V. Stone, 106 Mo. 1, 62, 63 T. Storms (Iowa), 85 N. W. 610, 814 V. Storts, 138 Mo. 127, 132 V. Stowe, 132 Mo. 199, 174 V. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24, 62, 63, 64 y. Strattman, 100 Mo. 540, 726 V. Straub, 16 Wash. Ill, 2 V. Straw, 33 Me. 554, 343 V. Straw, 42 N. H. 393, 316, 319 V. Strong, 153 Mo. 548, 22 V. Stroud, 99 Iowa 16, 291 V. Stroud, 95 N. C. 626, 131 V. Stuart, 61 Iowa 203, 257 HUGHBS' C. L. — ^vii S. V. Stuart, 35 La, 1015, e95< S. V. Stuhlmiller, 94 Iowa 750, 132" S. V. Stuth, 11 Wash. 423, 290, 295 S. V. Stynir, 154 Ind. 131, 175- S. V. Such, 58 N. J. L. 351, 518' S. V. Sudduth, 52 S. C. 488, 84 S. V. Sufferin, 6 Wash. 107, 20*- S. V. Sullivan, 68 Vt. 540, 75; 79, 80 ■ S. V. Summar, 143 Mo. 220, 549; 550» S. y. Summons, 19 Ohio 139, Sm, 661/' S. y. Sumner, 5 Strob. (S. C.) 53, 296, 297 S. V. Suppe, 60 Kan. 566, 666 S. V. Sutherland, 30 Iowa 570, 551 S. V. Sutton, 116 Ind. 527, 72, 705 S. V. Sutton, 147 Ind. 158, 421 S. V. Sutton, 70 Iowa 268, 858 S. V. Sntton, 53 Kan. 318, 186 S. V. Sutton, 10 R. I. 159, 764, 765 S. V Swafford, 98 Iowa 362, 410 S. V. Swafford, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 162, 217 S. V. Swan, 60 Kan. 461, 263 S. V. Swartz, 18 Ohio C. C. 892, 515 S. V. Swayze, 11 Ore. 357, 109 S. V. Sweet, 87 Me. 99, 276 S. V. Sweeten, 75 Mo. App. 127, 185 S. V. Sweetland, 3 S. D. 503, 448 S. V. Swepson, 79 N. C. 632, 680 S. V. Swim, 60 Ark. 587, 694 S. V. Swink, 4 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.) 358, 290> S. V. Swope, 72 Mo. 899, 921 S. V. Symes, 20 Wash. 484, 68S S. V. Taberner, 14 R. I. 272, 135, 139 ~ V. Talbot, 97 N. C. 494, 278 V. Tall, 43 Minn. 273, 884 V. Tally, 74 N. G. 322, 503 V. Talmage, 107 Mo. 548, 627 V. Tate, 145 Mo. 667, 219, 220 V. Tate, 156 Mo. 119, v 220, 739 V. Tatman, 59 Iowa 471, 67^ V. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483, 617, 771, 812 V. Taunt, 16 Minn. 109, V. Taylor, 25 Iowa 273, V. Taylor, 20 Kan. 648, V. Taylor, 34 La. 978, V. Taylor, 46 La. 1332, V. Taylor, 45 Me. 322, V. Taylor, 21 Mo. 480, V. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, V. Taylor, 134 Mo. 109, V. Taylor, 136 Mo. 68, V. Taylor, 143 Mo. 150, V. Taylor, 58 N. H. 331, V. Taylor, 82 N. C. 554, V. Taylor, 89 N. C. 577, V. Taylor, 111 N. C. 680, V. Taylor, 124 N. C. 803, V. Teeters, 97 Iowa 458, V. Tegder, 6 Kan. App. 762, V. Teipner, 36 Minn. 535, V. Temple, 12 Me. 214, V. Temple, 63 N. J. L. 375, V. Tennebom, 92 Iowa 551, m • .„ ^ 237, 240, 245 V. Tennison, 42 Kan. 330, 910 V. Terrell, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 321, 28- V. Terrill, 76 Iowa 149, 65 V. Terry, 80 Mo. 368, 699 V. Terry, 93 N. C. 585, 310 V. Testerman, 68 Mo. 408, 638 V. Thaden, 43 Mo. 98, 165 V. Thatcher, 85 N. J. L. 449, 164, 172, 176, 177 V. Theriault, 70 Vt. 617, 274 V. Theriot, 50 La. 1187, 416 V. Thibodanx, 49 La. 15, 4'>l 114 104 47 674 252 231, 241, 710 615 771 99 4, 7 501 , 5* 368. 568 89S 351 376 797 237 J37 SCVIU TABLE OP CASES. [References are to Pages.'] s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. ■s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. 8. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. qq s. T. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. V. s. T. s. T. s. V. s. T. s. V, s. T. s. V. S. V. Thomas, 103 Iowa 748, 553 Thomas, 58 Kan. 805, 91 Thompas, 13 W. Va. 848, 368 Thompson, 69 Conn. 720, 315 Thompson, 95 Iowa 464, 742 Thompson, 23 Kan. 338, 841 Thompson, 47 La. 1597, 782 Thompson, 80 Me. 194, 839 Thompson, 30 Mo. 470, 50 Thompson, 132 Mo. 301, 727 Thompson, 137 Mo. 620, 130 Thompson, 156 Mo. 300, 145 Thompson, 95 N. C. 596, 108 Thompson, 97 N. C. 496, 243 244 Thompson, 2 Ohio D. 30, ' 447 Thompson,. 28 Ore. 296, 151 Thompson, 14 Wash. 285, 89 Thome, 81 N. C. 555, 241 Thrift, 30 Ind. 211, 418 Tibbetts, 86 Me. 189, 896 Tice, 90 Mo. 112, 617 Tiee 30 Ore. 457, 327 Tidwell, 43 Arlj. 71, 55 Tierney, 1 Pen. (Del.) 116, 286 Tillman, 30 La. 1249, 75 Tilney, 38 Kan. 714, 113, 114 Tilton, 63 Iowa 117, 206 Timmens, 4 Minn. 333, 544 Timothy, 147 Mo. 532, 594 Tincher, 57 Kan. 136, 284 Tippet, 94 Iowa 646, 823 Tipton, 15 Mont. 74, 526 Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 361 Tobie, 141 Mo. 547. 247, 259 TolHver, 47 La. 1099, 896 Tom, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 569, 316 Tommy, 19 Wash. 270, 21 Tompliins, 33 La. 620. 140 Toole, 29 Conn. 342, 236, 237, 238 Toole, 69 Minn. 104, 922 Toole, 106 N. C. 736. 706, 892, 896, 897 Toombs, 79 Iowa 741, 305, 540 TDwle, 42 N. H. 540, 437, 463 Towle, 62 N. H. 373, 229 Towns, 153 Mo. 91, 589 Townsend, 50 Mo. App. 690, 572 Townsend, 86 N. C. 676, 336 Townsend, 7 Wash. 462, 55, 708 Trapp, 17 S. C. 467, 199 Trask, 42 Vt. 152. 411, 413 Trauger (Iowa), 77 N. W. 6, 698 Treadwell, 54 Kan. 513, 899 Triplett, 58 N. Y. Supp. 703, 47 Trisler, 49 Ohio St. 583, 176 Trives, 32 La. 1086, 26 Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 634, 658, 704 Trove, 1 Ind. App. 553, 348 Trusty, 1 Pen. (Del.) 319, 11, 15 Tucker, 76 Iowa 232, 109 Tucker, 96 Iowa 276, 777 Tucker, 84 Mo. 23, 242 Tnibell, 26 Ind. 264, 591, 599 Tuller, 34 Conn. 280, 143, 155 Turley, 153 Ind. 345, 411, 414 Turiey, 142 Mo. 403, 178, 180 Turlington, 102 Mo. 642, 734 Turnbull, 78 Me. 392, 709 Turner, 66 Conn. 222, 284 Turner, 106 Mo. 272, 210 Turner, 110 Mo. 196, 209 Turner, 148 Mo. 206, 258 Turner, 65 N. C. 592, 120, 121 Turner, 119 N. C. 841, 155 S. V. Turpin, 77 N. C. 473, 36 T. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 351, 24, 42, 672 V. Tyler, 54 S. C. 294, 346 V. Tyrrell, 98 Mo. 354, 203, 207, 712 T. Tyson, 56 Kan. 686, 884 V. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350, 514 v. Underwood, 49 Me. 181, 112 V. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40, 8, 738, 901 V. Upham, 38 Me. 261, 831 V. Upton, 20 Mo. 398, 900 V. VaJwell, 66 Vt. 558, 263 V. Van Auken, 98 Iowa 674, 249, 255 V. Van Buskirk, 59 Ind. 385, 792 V. Vanderbilt, 27 N. J L. 336, 158, 167 V. Vanderpool, 39 Ohio St. 273, 918 V. Van Doran, 109 N. C. 864, 484 V. Van Houten, 37 Mo. 357, 494 V. Van Nice, 7 S. D. 104, 740 V. Vansant, 80 Mo. 67, 24, 28, 33 V. Van Tassel, 103 Iowa 6, 7, 18 V. Vatter, 71 Iowa 557, 243 v. Vaughan, 121 Ala. 41, 679 T. Vaughan, 141 Mo. 514, 625, 627 T. Vaughan, 23 Nev. 103, 764 V. Vawter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 592, 493, 494 V. Verry, 36 Kan. 416. 750 V. Vicknair, 52 La. 1921, 584 V. Vincent, 1 Marv. (Del.) 560, 595 V. Vincent, 24 Iowa 575, 788 V. Vincent, 46 Kan. 618, 447, 453 V. Vines, 34 La. 1079, 3, 317, 670, 825 V. Vineyard, 16 Mont. 138, 264 V. Vinson, 63 N. C. 335, 125 V. Vogan, 56 Kan. 61, 768 V. Vollander, 57 Minn. 225, 508 V. Vorback. 66 Mo. 172, 180 V. Vorey, 41 Minn. 135, 82 V. Voss, 80 Iowa 467, 459 V. Wabash Paper Co., 21 Ind. App. 167, 487 V. Wacker, 16 Mo. App. 417, 240 V. Waddle, 100 Iowa 57, 415, 423 V. Wade, 43 Ark. 77. 566 V. Wade. 147 Mo. 73, 71 T V. Wagner, 78 Mo. 644, 751 V. Wagner, 118 Mo. 626, 118 V. Wait, 44 Kan. 310, 339 V. Watte, 101 Iowa 377, 270, 272 V. Wakefield, 73 Mo. 549, 415 V. Wakefield, 60 Vt. 618, 680 Waldron, 16 E. I. 191, 24 S. V. Walker, 41 Iowa 217, 120, 121, 122 S. V. Walker, 50 La. 420, 11 S. V. Walker, 77 Me. 488, 816, 817 S. V. Walker, 69 Mo. 274, 729 S. V. Walker, 119 Mo. 467, 920 S. V. Walker, 103 N. C. 418, 363 S. V. Wall, 39 Mo. 532, 715 S. V. Wallace, 109 Cal. 611, 553 S. V. Waller, 43 Ark. 381, 874 S. V. Waller, 80 N. C. 401, 508 S. V. Walls, 54 Ind. 561, 392 S, V. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444, 230 S. V. Walter, 2 Marv. (Del.) 444, 555 S. V. Walters, 45 Iowa 389, 89 S. V. Walton, 92 Iowa 455, 24, 26 S. V. Walton, 62 Me. 106, 134, 142 S. V. Walton, 114 N. C. 783, 178, 824 S. V. Waltz. 52 Iowa 227, 108 S. V. Wambold, 74 Iowa 605, 381 S. V. Ward, 43 Conn. 489, 194 S. V. Ward, 49 Conn. 429, 188, 719 S. V. Ward, 73 Iowa 532, 87, 829 TABLE @F CASES, XCIX [References are to FagesJ] 201, 625 82 279 901 96 74T 228 407 91 204 496 17, 96 233, 242 836 889 201 693 503, 504 508 503 378 255 124 766 299 169 101, 107 194 258 116 399, 401 2, 741 296, 297 771 8. V. Ward, 75 Iowa 637, 367 S. V. Ward, 64 Me. 545, „„ 720 S. V. Ward, 35 Minn. 182, 80, 82 S. V. Ward, 19 Nev. 297, 118 S. V. Ward, 39 Vt. 225, 777 S. V. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, „_ „„_ 239, 242, 243, 615, 744, 764, 791, 796 805, 808, 819, 820, 858, 861 S. V. Warden, 94 Mo. 648, 730 S. V. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73, 310, 313 S V. Warford, 106 Mo. 55, 206, 209 S. V. Warner, 34 Conn. 276, 289 S. V. Warner, 100 Iowa 260, S. V. Warner, 74 MO. 83, S. V. Warren. 1 Marv. (Del.) 487, 4, 11, 14, bZD S. V. Warren, 33 Me. 30, 194, 232 S. V. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 111 S. V. Warren, 57 Mo. App. 502, 296 S. T. Warren, 124 N. C. 807, -525 S. V. Warren, 13 Tex. 45, S. T. Waterman, 1 Nev. 543, S. v. Waters, 39 Me. 54, S. v. Waters, 156 Mo. 132, S. T. Watkins, 101 N. C. 702, S. V. Watson, 66 Iowa 670, S. v. Watson, 81 Iowa 380, S. V. Watson, 102 Iowa 651, S. v. Watson, 30 Kan. 281, S. V. Watson, 41 La. 598, S. V. Watson, 63 Me. 128, S. T. Watson, 31 Mo. 361, S. V. Watson, 95 Mo. 411, S. v. Watson, 141 Mo. 338, S. V. Watson, 104 N. C. 735, S. v. Watson, 20 E. I, 354, S. V. Way, 6 Vt. 311, S. V. Weatherly, 43 Me. 258, S. V. Weaver, 83 Ind. 543, S. V. Weaver, 13 Ired. (N. C.) 491 S. V. Weaver, 104 N. C. 758, S. V. Weaver, 58 S. C. 106, S. V. Webb, 25 Iowa 235, S. T. Webb, 26 Iowa 262, S. V. Webb, 87 N. C. 558, S. V. Weber, 156 Mo. 257, S. V. Webster, 152 Mo. 87, S. V. Webster, 156 Mo. 257, S. V. Wedge, 24 Minn. 150, S. V. Weeden, 133 Mo. 70, S. V. Weekly, 29 Ind. 206, S. V. Weems, 96 Iowa 426, S. V. Weiners, 66 Mo. 13, 2 S. V. Welch, 26 Me. 30, 784 S. V. Welch, 21 Minn. 22, 596 S. V. Welch, 73 Mo. 284, 112 S. V. Welch, 36 W. Va. 690, 41 S. V. Weldon, 39 S. C. 318, 208 S. V. Wellott, 54 Mo. App. 310, 355 S. V. Wells, 46 Iowa 662, 540 S. V. Wells, 48 Iowa 671, 551 S. V. Welsh, 109 Iowa 19, 401 S. V. Wentler, 76 Wis. 95, 530 S. V. Wentworth, 35 N. H. 442, 376 S. V. Wentworth, 37 N. Y. 218, 812 S. V. Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 546, 549 S. V. Westi 46 La. 1009, 304, 305, 541 S. T. West, 39 Minn. 321, 898 S. V. West, 84 Mo. 440, 742 S. V. West, 157 Mo. 309, 617, 747 S. V. West, 10 Tex. 555, 703 S. V. Western, etc., E. Co., 89 N. C. 584, 713 S. V. Westfall, 49 Iowa 328, 28, 327, 617, 628, 735, 819 S. V. Weston, 9 Conn. 527, 121 S. V. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439, 737 S. V. Whalen, 98 Iowa 662, 546, 552, 553 S. V. Wheatley, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 230, 538 S. V. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290, 645 S. V. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98, 256 S. V. Wheeler, 79 Mo. 366, 861 S. V. Wheeler, 94 Mo. 252, 548 S. V. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 659, 544, 551 S. V. Wheeler, 104 N. C. 893, 524 S. V. Wheele?, 35 Vt. 261, 851 S. V. Wheeler, 62 Vt. 439, 370 S. i. Wheelock, 95 Iowa 577, 481 S. V. Whidbee, 124 N. C. 796, 165, 166, 167 S. V. Whit, 4 Jones (N. C.) 349, 194 S. V. Whitaker, 89 N. C. 472, 129 S. V. Whitaker, 107 N. C. 802, 282 S. V. Whitby, 15 Kan. 402, 204 S. V. Whiteomb, 52 Iowa 85, 502 S. V. White, 129 Ind. 153, 113 S. V. White, 41 Iowa 316, 904 S. V. White, 45 Iowa 325, 96 S. V. White, 98 Iowa 346, 264, 734 S. V. White, 19 Kan. 445, 516, 677 S. V. White, 44 Kan. 514, 81 S. V. White, 18 E. I. 473, 292, 491 S. V. White, 70 Vt. 225, 382 S. V. White, 66 Wis. 343, 138 S. V. Whiteman, 9 Wash. 402, 151 S. V. White Oak Eiver Corp., Ill 634 750 237, 240 698, 860 676 N. C. 661, S. V. Whitmer, 77 Iowa 557, S. V. Whitmore, 53 Kan. 343, S. V. Whitmore, 147 Mo. 78, S. V. Whitney, 7 Ore. 386, S. V. Whitson, 111 N. C. 695, S. T. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245, 412, 413, 427 S. V. Whitten, 90 Me. 53, 277 S. V. Whittier, 21 Me. 341, 281 S. V. Whitworth, 126 Mo. 573, 796 S. V. Whorton (Mont.), 63 Pac. 627, 133 S. V. Wlggin, 72 Me. 425, 382 S. V. Wiggins, 50 La. 330, 37 S. v. Wilbourne, 87 N. C. 529, 176 S. V. Wrtcox, 111 Mo. 569, 91 S. V. Wilcox, 104 N. C. 847, 694 S. V. Wilcox, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 278, 224 S. V. Wiles, 26 Minn. 381, 111 S. V. Wiley, 76 Miss. 282, 582 S. V. Wilkerson, 98 N. C. 696, 164 S. V. Wilkerson, 103 N. C. 337, 162, 166 S. V. Wllkins, 66 Vt. 1, 85 S. T. Wilkinson, 121 Mo. 485, 63 S. V. Wilks, 58 Mo. App. 159, 123 S. V. WiU, 49 La. 1337, 103, 108 S. V. Willard, 109 Mo. 242, 168 S. V. Williams (Ark.), 57 S. W. 792, 849 S. V. Williams, 21 Ind. 206, 228 S. V. Williams, 103 Ind. 235, 173 S. V. Williams, 139 Ind. 43, 259 S. V. Williams, 20 Iowa 98, 513, 710, 851 S. V. Williams, 66 Iowa 573, 250 S. V. Williams, 60 Kan. 837, 427 S. V. Williams, 61 Kan. 739, 415, 419 S. V. Williams, 34 La. 87, 585, 586 S. V. Williams, 40 La. 732, 135 S. V. Williams, 25 Me. 561, 592 S. V. Williams, 76 Me. 480, 507 S. V. Williams, 32 Minn. 537, 723 S. V. Williams, 72 Miss. 992, 312 S. V. Williams, 30 Mo. 364, 410 S. V. Williams, 117 Mo. 379, 742 S. V. Williams, 136 Mo. 293, 391 397 398 S. V. Williams, 149 Mo. 496, ' 75', 775 S. V. Williams, 152 Mo. 115, 252, 261, 266 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages."] 263 376 118 204 194 S. V. Williams, 2 Mo. App. 1180, 313 S. V. Williams, 85 Mo. App. 541, 354 !3. V. Williams, 44 Mo. App. 302, 577 S. V. Williams, 30 N. J. L. 104, 298, 299, 301, 302, 537 S. V. Williams, 7 Jones L. (N, C.) 446, 809 S. T. Williams, 75 N. C. 134, 48 S. V. Williams, 90 N. C. 724, 194 S. V. Williams, 109 N. C. 846, 528 S. T. Williams, 121 N. C. 628, 78, 91 S. V. Williams, 2 Speers (S. C.) 26, 441 S. T. Williams, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 418, S. V. Williams, 11 S. D. 64, S. T. Williams, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 101, S. V. Williams, 41 Tex. 98, S. V. Williams, 40 W. Va. 268, S. T. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162, 816, 834 S. v. Williamson, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 483, 204 S. V. Williford, 91 N. C. 529, 665 S. T. Willis, 71 Conn. 293, 769 S. v. Willis, 78 Me. 70, 575, 577, 710 S. T. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 464 S. T. Willis, 7 Jones (N. C.) 190, 193 S. V. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304, 623 S. V. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500, 105, 318, 715 S. V. Wilson, 38 Conn. 126, S. V. Wilson, 50 Ind. 487, S. V. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189, S. V. Wilson, 42 Kan. 587, S. V. Wilson, 42 Me. 9, S. T. Wilson, 3 Mo. 125, S. T. Wilson, 85 Mo. 134, S. V. Wilson, 121 Mo. 434, S. V. Wilson, 137 Mo. 592, S. V. Wilson, 143 Mo. 334, S. V. Wilson, 66 Mo. App. 540, S. T. Wilson, 43 N. H. 415, .S. V. Wilson, 47 N. H. 181, S. V. Wilson, 31 N. J. L. 77, S. V. Wilson, 62 N. C. 237, S. V. Wilson, 67 N. C. 456, S. V. Wilson, 93 N. C. 608, 298, 299, 302, 305 S. V. Wilson, 116 N. C. 979, 158 S. V. Wilson, 121 N. C. 635, 319 S. V. Wilson, 87 Tenn. 693, 413 S. V. Wilson, 9 Wash. 218, 562, 567, 726 S. V. Wiltsey, 103 Iowa 54, 503 S. v. Wlmberly, 3 McCord (S. C.) 190, 17 S. V. Winder, 14 Wash. 114, 444 S. V. Windsor, 5 Har. (Del.) 512, 835 S. V. Winebrenner, 67 Iowa 230, 707 S. V. Wingard, 40 La. 733, 254 S. V. Wingo, 89 Ind. 204, 135, 154 S. T. Winkley, 14 N. H. 480, 502 S. V. Winner, 17 Kan. 298, 327, 809 S. V. Winningham, 124 Mo. 423, 534 S. V. Windstandley, 151 Ind. 316, 411 S. V. Winthrop, 43 Iowa 519, 16 S. T. Wisdom, 84 Mo. 177, 312 S. V. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 659 S. V. Wister, 62 Mo. 592, 306 S. T. Witham, 70 Wis. 473, 286 S. v. Withee, 87 Me. 462, 174, 176 S. v. Witt, 34 Kan. 488, 641 S. T. Witt, 33 Ore. 594, 120, 694 S. V. Witty, 74 Mo. App. 550, 366 S. V. Wolf, 112 N. C. 889, 487, 488 S. v. Wolfenberger, 20 Ind. 242, 232 S. V. Womack, 4 Wash. 19, 391 S. V. Wood, 46 Iowa 116, 99 768 677 25, 32, 755 742 346 229 727 23 204 164 268 657 196 784 292 218 S. V. Wood, 53 N. H. 484, 31 494 787 S. V. Woodard, 123 N. C. '710, ' 274^ S. V. Woodbury, 67 Vt. 602, S. V. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541, S. V. Woodfin, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 199, S. V. Woodley, 25 Ga. 235, S. V. Woodruff, 47 Kan. 151, 100, S. V. Woodruff, 67 N. C. 89, S. V. Woods, 49 Kan. 237, S. V. Woods, 137 Mo. 6, S. V. Woodward, 34 Me. 293, S. T. Woodward, 131 Mo. 369, S. V. Woodward, 156 Mo. 143, S. T. Woodward, 50 N. H. 527, S. V. Woolard, 111 Mo. 248, S. V. Wooley, 59 Vt. 357, S. V. Worden, 46 Conn. 349, S. V. Workman, 39 S. C. 151, S. T. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, S. V. Worthen (Iowa), 8 N. W. 910, S. V. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528, S. V. Worthington, 64 N. C. 594, S. V. Wrand, 108 Iowa 73, S. V. Wray, 109 Mo. 594, S. V. Wray, 72 N. C. 253, S. V. Wren, 48 La. 803, S. V. Wright, 41 Ark. 414, 289, S. T. Wright, 2 Pen. (Del.) 228, S. V. Wright, 40 La. 589, S. V. Wright, 53 Me. 328, S. V. Wright, 134 Mo. 404, S. V. Wright, 68 N. H. 351, S. V. Wright, 6 Jones (N. C.) 25, S. V. Wright, 19 Ore. 258, S. V. Wyckoff, 31 N. J. L. 68, S. v. Wynne, 118 N. C. 1206, S. V. Yeaton, 53 Me. 127, S. V. Yetzer, 97 Iowa 423, 766, S. T. Yocum. 117 Mo. 622, S. V. York, 70 N. C. 66, S. V. Young, 96 Iowa 262, 299, S. V. Young, 104 Iowa 730, 32, 33, S. V. Young, 55 Kan. 349, S. T. Young, 105 Mo. 634, S. V. Young, 153 Mo. 445, S. V. Young, 46 N. H. 266. S. T. Young, 37 N. J. L. 184, 323, S. V. Young, 76 N. C. 258, S. T. Young, 13 Wash. 584, S. V. Zabriskie, 43 N. J. L. 369, S. v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa 169, S. V. Zeigler, 40 W. Va. 593, 624, S. V. Zermuehlen, 110 Iowa 1, S. V. Zimmerman, 47 Kan. 242, Staup V. Com., 74 Pa. St. 458, 772, St. Clair V. U. S., 154 U. S. 134, Steadman v. S., 81 Ga. 736, 208, Stearns v. S., 81 Md. 341, Stebbens v. P., 27 111. 240, Steele v. Gunn, 49 Hun (N. T.) 610, Steele v. P.. 45 111. 157, 263, 726, 727, 728, 731, StefanI v. S., 124 Ind. 3, Steffy V. P., 130 111. 98, 10, 52, 886, Steinberger v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 492, Steiner v. P., 187 111. 245, 44, Stelnert, In re, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 301, Steinmeyer v. P., 95 111. 388, 624, 861, Steinwehr v. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 586, 587, Stephens v. Cowan, 6 Watts (Pa.) 511, Stephens v. P., 38 Mich. 739, 767, 79» 276 4Se 240 464 117 103 525 827 IftS 808 219 175 54 871 751 777 52 311 197 527 816 209 75 366 760 290 186 63S 89S 622 383 298 199 181 392 290 771 83 343 539 763 7 872 234 253 324 166 116 549 407 886 370 258 781 17 209 569 738 457 829 421 911 587 624 457 596 907 768 TABLE OF CASES. CI [References are to Pages.2 Stephens v. P., 19 N. Y. 549, 791 Stephens v. S., 51 Ga. 236, 902 Stephens v. S., 65 Miss. 329, 222 223 224 Btephens v. S., 10 Tex. App. 120, ' 858 Stephenson v. Hanson, 67 How. Pr. ; (N. Y.) 305, ^ 462 Sternaman, Ex parte, 77 Fed. 595, 923 Stevens v. Com., 14 Leigh (Ta.) 683, 237 Stevens v. P., 67 111. 591, 301, 365, 537, 565 Stevens v. P., 158 111. 121, 78, 83, 84 Stevens v. S., 93 Ga. 307, 726 Stevens v. S., 44 Ind. 469, 850 Stevens v. S., 50 Kan. 712, 794 Stevens v. S., 66 Md. 202, 705 Stevens v. S., 89 Md. 669, 275 Stevens v. S., 19 Neb. 647, 886 Stevenson v. S., 90 Ga. 456, 556 Stevenson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 312, 44 Steviek v. Com., 78 Pa. St. 460, 705 Steward v. P., 173 111. 464, 108 Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 415, 181 Stewart v. S., 44 Ind. 237, 643 Stewart v. S., 140 Ind. 7, 450, 453 Stewart v. S., 64 Miss. 626, 743 Stewart v. S., 22 Ohio St. 477, 422, 423, 829 Stewart v. S., 9 Tex. App. 321, 128 Stickney, Ex parte, 40 Ala. 160, 433 Stimpson.v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 238, 433 ■Stinehouse v. S., 47 Ind. 17, 546 Stinson v. P., 43 111. 398, 102, 108, 112, 143, 158 Stipp V. S., 11 Ind. 62, 9 Stitz V. S., 104 Ind. 359, 242, 243, 641, 824, 832, 847 St. Joseph V. Elliott, 47 Mo. App. 418, 354 St. Louis V. Goebel, 32 Mo. 295, 657 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230, 434 Stoball V. S., 116 Ala. 454, 2, 13 Stockton V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 509 572 Stokeiey v. Com., 1 Ta. Caa. 330, 446, 464 Stoker v. P., 114 111. 323, 142 Stokes V. S., 58 Miss. 677, 121 Stokes V. U. S., 157 D. S. 187, 606 Stolp V. Blair, 68 111. 544, 788 Stoltz V. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 169, 565, 672, 891, 900 Stone V. Com., 20 Ky. L. 478, 140, 144 Stone V. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 336, 19, 694, 695, 764, 773 Stone V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 457, 224 Stone V. U. S., 167 U. S. 178, 903 Stoneking v. S., 118 Ala. 68, 694 Stoppert V. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 519, 523, 524, 525 Storey v. P., 79 III. 52, 435, 436, 452 Stormes v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1434, 365, 366, 371 Storoc, Matter of, 48 N. H. 428, 435 Story V. Jones, 52 111. App. 112, 341 Stoughton V. S., 2 Ohio St. 562, 173 Stout V. S., 90 Ind. 1, 808 Stout V. S., 93 Ind. 150, 695 Stout V. S., 96 Ind. 411, 750 Stout V. S.. 76 Md. 317, 666 Stovall V. S., 56 Tenn. 597, 377, 522 Stowe V. Bishop. 58 Vt. 500, 805 Strahan v. S., 68 Miss. 347, 312 Strait V. S., 77 Miss. 693, 619 Strait V. Williams, 18 Nev. 430, 448 Stratton v. P., 20 Hun (N. T.) 288, 417 Stratton v. S., 13 Ark. 690, 29(), 294 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 653 Streep v. U. S., 160 U. S. 128, 601 Street v. S., 67 Ala. 87, 309 Streeter v. P., 69 111. 598, 657 Strlbling v. Prettyman, 57 III. 371, 655 Strickler v. Grass, 32 Neb. 811, 523 Strohm v. P., 160 III. 584, 557 Stropes V. S., 120 Ind. 562, 148 Strong V. S., 86 Ind. 208, 158, 166, 178 Strong V. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 392, 245 Strother v. S., 74 Miss. 447, 311 Stuart V. Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 950, 902 Stuart V. P., 3 Scam. (III.) 403, 430, 435, 464, 914 Stuart V. P., 73 III. 21, 132, 643 Stuart V. P., 42 Mich. 255, 205 Stuart V. Stuart, 123 Mass. 370, 434, 454 Stubbs V. S., 49 Miss. 716, 743, 888, 903 Stultz V. S., 96 Ind. 456, 362 Sturtevant v. Com., 158 Mass. 598, 875, 878 Stutsman v. Ter., 7 Okla. 490, 19 Sudduth V. S., 124 Ala. 32, 888 Sudduth V. S., 70 Miss. 250, 311 Sullivan v. Com., 93 Pa. St. 285, 826 Sullivan v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 387, 523 Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 444, 462 Sullivan v. Kelly, 85 Mass. 148, 521 Sullivan v. Maine, etc., E. Co., 82 Me. 196, 356 Sullivan v. P., 15 111. 234, 659 Sullivan v. P., 114 111. 27, 786, 842, 860 Sullivan v. P., 122 111. 387, 842 Sullivan v. P., 156 111. 97, 696, 905 Sullivan v. P., 14 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 239, 854 Sullivan v. S., 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 175, 235 Sullivan v. S., 102 Ala. 135, 25, 28, 30 Sullivan v. S., 52 Ind. 309, 346 Sullivan v. S., 67 Miss. 346, 541, 703 Sullivan v. S., 44 Wis. 595, 60, 898 Sultan, In re, 115 N. C. 57, 917 Summeralls v. S., 37 Fla. 162, 903 Summers, Ex parte, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 149, 456 Summers v. S., 5 Tex. App. 374, 444 Summers v. S., 9 Tex. App. 396, 212 Sumner v. Candler, 92 N. C. 634, 746 Sumner v. S., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 579, 824, 866 Sumpter v. S.. 11 Fla. 247, 836 Surles V. S., 89 Ga. 167, 788 Sutfln V. P., 43 Mich. 37, 519 Suther v. S., 118 Afa. 88, 549, 552 Sutton V. P., 119 111. 254, 732, 799 Sutton V. P., 145 111. 283, 74, 78 79, 80, 85, 86, 655, 708, 775 Sutton V. S., 12 Fla. 135, 309, 311 Sutton V. S., 58 Neb. 567, 266 Swaggart v. Ter., 6 Okla. 344, 303 Swain v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 179, 257 Swalley v. P., 116 111. 249, 671, 719 Swallow V. S., 20 Ala. 30, 561, 564 Swan V. Com., 104 Pa. St. 218, 210, 825 Swan V. P., 98 111. 612, 789 Swank v. Swank. 85 Mo. 198, 911 S wanner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. V7. 72, 625 Swanson v. P., 89 111. 589, 736 Cll TABLE OF CASES. {References are to Pages.'] Swarth V. P., 109 111. 622, 370 Swartzbaugh v. P., 85 111. 459, 227, 915 Swearingen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 446, 556 Sweeden v. S., 19 Ark. 205, 56 Sweenle v. S., 59 Neb. 269,^^^_ ^^^^ ^^^ Sweeny v. Traverse, 82 Iowa 720, 449 Sweeten v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 719 132 Sweetser t. S., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 528, 55 Sweitzer v. Ter., 5 Okla. 297, 567 Swett V. Stubbs, 34 Me. 178, 521 Swift V. Klein, 163 111. 269, 374 Swigart V. P., 154 111. 296, 560, 561, 655, 658 Swigert, In re, 119 111. 88, 655 Swink V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 530, 117 Swisher v. Com., 26 Gratt. (Va.) 963, 26 Swisher v. Malone, 31 W. Va. 442, 526 Sword V. Nestor, 33 Ky. 453, 521, 526 Sydleman v. Beckwith, 43 Conn. 13, 804 Sykes v. P., 127 111. 129, 434, 645, 659 Sykes v. P., 132 111. 32, 850 Sylvester v. S., 42 Tex. 496, 305 Synon v. P., 188 111. 609, 747 Taeey v. Noyes, 143 Mass. 449, 526 Taff V. S., 39 Conn. 82, 876, 892 Taggart v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 493, 433, 901 Taliaferro v. Com., 77 Va. 411, 205 Talman v. Strader, 23 111. 440, 560 Taney v. S., 9 Ind. App. 46, 582 Tanner v. Albion, 5 Hill (N. T.) 121, 299 Tanner v. Allen, 16 Ky. 25, 519 Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397, 924 Tarble v. P., Ill 111. 123, 913 Tarbox v. S., 38 Ohio St. 581, 159, 178 Tarkins v. S., 108 Ala. 17, 378 Tarpe v. S.. 95 Ga. 457, 210 Tarpley v. P., 42 111. 342, 49 Tarver v. S., 43 Ala. 354, 46, 49 Tarver v. S., 95 Ga. 222, 208 Tate V. S., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 174, 580, 852 Tatum V. S., 82 Ala. 5, 829 Tatum V. S., 33 Fla. 311, 572 Tatum V. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 40, 727 Taylor v. Baldwin, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 166, 453 Taylor v. Betsford, 13 Johns. (N. T.) 487, 870 Taylor v. Carry I, 20 How. (U. S.) 584, 665 Taylor v. Com., 3 Bush (Ky.) 508, 218 Taylor v. Com., 94 Ky. 281, 163 Taylor v. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) 825, 82 Taylor v. Goodrich (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 515, 465 Taylor v. S., 22 Ala. 15, 296, 297 Taylor v. S., 48 Ala. 180, 11 Taylor v. S., 121 Ala. 39, 369 Taylor v. S., 36 Ark. 84, 501, 503 Taylor v. S., 44 Ga. 263, 129 Taylor v. S., 50 Ga. 79, 86 Taylor v. S., 105 Ga. 746, 2 Taylor v. S., 105 Ga. 846, 493 Taylor v. S,, 110 Ga. 150, 79, 534, 671 Taylor v. S., 52 Miss. 84, 511, 515 Taylor v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 110, 158 Taylor v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 552, 26 Taylor v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 285, 132 Taylor v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 753, 675 Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366, 665, 690' Teague v. S., 120 Ala. 309, 11, 40, 625 Teal V. Com. (Ky.), 57 S. W. 464, 385 Teasley v. S., 109 Ga. 282, 291 Teerney v. P., 81 111. 41,2, 723, 913 Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 436 Teller v. P., 7 Colo. 451, 463 Temple v. Com., 77 Ky. 769, 903. Temple v. Com., 75 Va. 892, 794 Tennessee v. Jackson, 36 Fed. 258, 921 Tenney v. Smith, 63 Vt. 520, 847 Tenny v. Lenz, 16 Wis. 589, 650 Tennyson v. S., 97 Ala. 78, 176 Terrell V. S., 86 Tenn. 523, 95 Terrill, In re, 58 Kan. 815, 926 Ter. V. Ah Wah, 4 Mont. 149, 662 Ter. V. Anderson, 6 Dak. 300, 113 Ter. V. Anderson, 2 Idaho 537, 413 Ter. V. Armijo, 7 N. M. 571, 58, 694, 714 Ter. V. Barrett, 8 N. M. 70, 740 Ter. V. Barth (Ariz.), 15 Pac. 673, 716 Ter. V. Booth (Ariz.), 36 Pac. 38, 210 Ter. V. Bowen, 2 Idaho 607, 305, 542 Ter. V. Casio, 1 Ariz. 485, 120, 121 Ter. V. Chartrand, 1 Dak. 379, 542 Ter. V. Clancey, 7 N. M. 584, 433, 437 Ter. V. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50, 531 Ter. V. Crozier, 6 Dak. 8, 224 Ter. V. Delana, 3 Okla. 573, > 254 Ter. V. Dooley, 4 Mont. 295, 56 Ter. V. Lockhart, 8 N. M. 523, 421 Ter. V. Lucero, 8 N. M. 543, 21 Ter. V. Maldonado, 9 N. M. 629, 84 Ter. V. Manton, 8 Mont. 95, 736 Ter. V. McClin, 1 Mont. 394, 811, 814 Ter. V. McGinnis (N. M.), 61 Pac. 208, 825 Ter. V. Meyer (Ariz.), 24 Pac. 183, 152 Ter. V. Miera, 1 N. M. 387, 714 Ter. V. Miller (Dak. Ter.), 8 Cr. h- Mag. 286, 741 Ter. V. Murray, 7 Mont. 251, 439 Ter. V. Paul, 2 Mont. Ter. 314, 783, 800 Ter. V. Pendry, 9 Mont. 67, 116 Ter. V. Pino, 9 N. M. 598, 87 Ter. V. Potter, 1 Ariz. 421, 78 Ter. V. Roberts, 9 Mont. 12, 77T Ter. V. Shipley, 4 Mont. 468, 114, 740 Ter. V. Stone, 2 Dak. 155, 301, 538 Ter. V. Thierry, 1 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 101, 453 Ter. v. Whitcomb, 1 Mont. 358, 502, 503 Ter. V. Williams, 9 N. M. 400, 423 Ter. V. Yarburry, 2 N. M. 391, 897 Terry v. Com., 87 Va. 672, 253 Terry v. S., 90 Ala. 635, 314 Terry v. S., 120 Ala. 286, 42 Terry v. S., 13 Ind. 70, 787 Terry v. S., 1 Wash. 277, 140 Tervin v. S., 37 Fla. 396, 720 Thalhelm y. S., 38 Pla. 169, 154 Thatcher v. S., 48 Ark. 60, 298, 299 Thayer v. Lombard, 165 Mass. 174, 25 Thayer v. S., 11 Ind. 287, 344 Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. Ill, 534, 826 Therasson v. P., 82 N. Y. 239, 168, 177 Thiede v. Utah Ter., 159 U. S. 510, 39, 769 Thomas, In re, 87 Fed. 453, 479 Thomas, Ex parte, 103 Cal. 497, 501 Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 62 Fed. 803, 320 TABLE OF CASES. cm [References are to Pages."] Thomas v. Com., 12 Ky. L. 903, 112 Thomas v. Com., 22 Gratt. (Va.) 912, , 739: Thomas v. Cummins, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 40 451, 452 Thomas v. P., 14 Ccflo. 254, 447 Thomas v. P., 59 111. 162, 575 Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531, 322, 32a 166, 167, 672, 705, 717, 874, 900 Thomas v. P., 34 N. Y. 351, 163 Thomas v. P., 67 N. Y. 218, 818 Thomas v. S., 91 Ala. 34, 214 Thomas v. S., 92 Ala. 49, 269 Thomas v. S., 97 Ala. 3, 198 Thomas v. S., 107 Ala. 13, 245 Thomas v. S., 114 Ala. 31, 120 Thomas v. S., 116 Ala. 461, 245 Thomas v. S., 124 Ala. 48, 35 Thomas v. S., 125 Ala. 45, 779 Thomas v. S., 67 Ga. 460, 823 Thomas v. S., 71 Ga. 252, 408 Thomas v. S., 90 Ga. 437, 165 Thomas v. S., 99 Ga. 38, 49 Thomas v. S., 103 Ind. 419, 263, 556, 824, 839 Thomas v. S., 87 Miss. 353, 369 Thomas v. S. (Tex.), 26 S. W. 724, 505 Thomas v. S., 14 Tex. App. 70, 508 Thomas v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 144, 207 Thomas v. Thomas, 51 111. 165, 109 Thomason v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 1013, „53 Thomasson v. S., 15 Ind. 449. 645 Thompson's Case, 122 Mass. 428, 793 Thompson, Ex parte (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 912, 690 Thompson's Case, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 6387 904 Thompson v. Com., 88 Va. 45, 728 Thompson y. Pennsylvania E. Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 105, 430, 442 Thompson v. P., 26 Colo. 496, 411, 418, 770, 865 Thompson v. P., 24 111. 61, 173, 771 Thompson v. P., 96 111. 161, 715 Thompson v. P., 125 111. 256, 118, 190, 264, 705 Thompson v. P., 144 111. 380, 757 Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dill. (U. S.) 508, 432 Thompson y. S., 25 Ala. 41, 328 Thompson v. S., 28 Ala. 12, 511 Thompson v. S., 48 Ala. 166, 851 Thompson v. S., 49 Ala. 16, 247 Thompson v. S., 67 Ala. 106, 222 Thompson v. S., 99 Ala. 173, 571, 572 Thompson v. S., 106 Ala. 67, 319, 787, 839 Thompson v. S., 117 Ala. 67, 735 Thompson v. S., 122 Ala. 12, 735 Thompson v. S., 37 Ark. 408, 383 Thompson v. S., 92 Ga. 448, 104 Thompson v. S., 109 Ga. 272, 762 Thompson v. S., 18 Ind. 386, 198 Thompson t. S., 16 Ind. App. 84, 590 Thompson v. S., 105 Tenn. 177, 708 Thompson v. S., 43 Tex. 583, 89 Thompson v. S., 26 Tex. App. 94, 591 592 Thompson v. S., 30 Tex. App. 325,' 41 Thompson v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 217, 727 Thompson v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 472, 85 Thompson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 30 S. W. 667, 59 Thompson t. TJ. S., 155 V. S. 271, 780 Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 780 Thorpe v. Railroad, 27 Vt. 140, 652 Thorpe v. S., 40 Tex.,Cr. 346, 168 Thrasher v. S., 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 460, 129 Thrawley v. S., 158 Ind. 375, 37, 865 Throckmorton v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1508, 377, 882 Throckmorton v. Com. (Ky.), 29 S. W. 16, 132 Thurman v. S., 54 Ark. 120, 889 Thurmond v. S., 30 Tex. App. 539, 119 Thurmond v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 432, 779 Thweatt v. S., 74 Ga. 821, 63 Tibbs V. Allen, 29 111. 547, 752 Tice, Ex parte, 32 Ore. 179, 926 Tickner v. P., 6 Hun (N. Y.) 657, 193 Ti dwell V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 38, 181 Tiffany v. Com., 121 Pa. St. 165, 833 Tift, In re, 11 Fed. 468, 462 Tiller v. S., 101 Ga. 782, 78 Tiily V. S., 21 Fla. 242, 120, 123, 199 Tilton V. S., 52 Ga. 478, 905 Timmons v. S., 80 Ga. 216, 263 Timmons v. S., 56 Miss. 786, 897 Timmons v. U. S., 85 Fed. 204, 604 Timon v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 368, 52, 674 Tiner v. S., 44 Tex. 128, 687 Tingle v. U. S., 87 Fed. 320, 606 Tinney v. S., Ill Ala. 74, 126, 842 Tip V. S., 14 Lea (Tenn.) 502, 26 Tipler v. S., 57 Miss. 685, 811 Tippens v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W. 1000, 841 Tippie V. S. (Tex.), 13 S. W. 777, 132 Tipton V. S., 27 Ind. 493, 596 Titcomb v. Vantyle, 84 IJl. 371, 623 Tittle V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 202, 92 Titus V. S., 117 Ala. 16, 7 Titus V. S., 49 N. J. L. 36, 823, 703, 706 Tobin V. P., 101 111. 124, 856, 885, 886 Tobin V. P., 104 111. 567, 118, 129 181, 185, 191, 705, 897, 898 Tod, In re, 12 S. D. 886, 920 Todd V. S., 80 Tex. App. 667, 356 Todd V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 232, 22T ToUeson v. People's Sav. Bank, 85 Ga. 171, 460 Tollett V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 835, 47 Tolman v. Jones, 114 111. 147, 445, 464 Tomerlin t. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 214, 120 Toney v. S., 60 Ala. 97, 304, 305, 538, 541 Toole's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 376, 371 Torney v. §., 13 Mo. 455, 561 Toulet V. S., 100 Ala. 72, 78, 82 Towl V. Bradley, 108 Mich. 409, 767 Townley v. Cady, 10 Neb. 888, 679 Town of Cantril v. Sainer, 59 Iowa 26, 366 Town of Paris v. P., 27 III. 75, 716 Towns V. S., Ill Ala. 1, 615 Townsend v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 329, 259, 717 Townsend v. S., 92 Ga. 732, 249, 655 Tozer v. New York, etc., Co., 105 N. Y. 659, 745 Tracy v. Com., 87 Ky. 578, 336 Tracy v. P., 97 111. 105, 28, 29, 82, 33, 800 Tracy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 898, 59 Tracy v. Williams, 4 Conn. 107, 685, 722 Trammel v. S., Ill Ala. 77, 469, 470 Trask t. P., 104 111. 569, 225, 727, 749, 795, 828, 860 Traube v. S., 56 Miss. 158, 902 OIV TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.l Travera v. V- S., 6 App. D. C. 450, 2, 12 Travis v. Com., 98 Ky. 77, 113 Travis v. Com., 106 Pa. St. 597, 768 Traylor y. S., 101 Ind. 65, 809 Treaavfell v. Torbert, 122 Ala. 297, 466 Treat v. Parsons, 84 Me. 520, 274 Tredway v. Van Wagenen, 91 Iowa 556, 434 Trent V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 251, 205 Treue V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 829, 382 Tribley v. S., 42 Ohio St. 205, 467 Trimble v. Com., 96 Va. 818, 442 Triplett V. Com., 84 Ky, 193, 111, 213 Tripp T. S., 95 Ga. 502, 884 Tripp V. S., 109 Ga. 489, 345 Trogdon v. Com., 31 Gratt. (Va.) 863, 159, 176, 177, 178 Troia, In re, 64 Cal. 152, 690 Troiitman v. S., 49 N. J. L. 33, 537 Triiitt V. P.. 88 111. 519, 721, 722, 908 Trujillo T. Ter., 6 N. M. 589, 796 Truman, Ex parte, 124 Cal. 387, 443 Truman, In re, 44 Mo. 181, 266 Trusty v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 706, 36 Tuberson v. S., 26 Fla. 472, 675, 871 Tucker v. Gilman, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 577, 451 Tucker v. Hamilton, 108 III. 464, 908 Tucker v. Keen, 60 Ga. 410, 465 Tucker V. P., 117 111. 91, 514, 516 Tucker v. P., 122 111. 583, 511, 515 516. 656, 737, 753, 828, 851 Tucker v. S., 57 Ga. 503, 120 Tucker v. S., 76 Tenn. 633, 63 Tucker v. S., 35 Tex. 113, 503, 504 Tudor V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1039, 20 Tufts V. S., 41 Fla. 663, 674 Tuichner, Ex parte, 69 Iowa 393, 879 Tuller V. S., 8 Ter. Cr. 501, 237 Tunis V. S., 41 Tex. 598, 245 TuUy v. P., 67 N. Y. 1.5, 94, 96 Turbeville v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 145, 122, 563, 568 Turley v. P., 188 III. 628, 219, 220 Turner v. Booker, 2 Dana (Ky.) 335 881 Turner v. Smith, 90 Mich. 309, 460 Turner v. S., 97 Ala. 57, 98, 853 Turner v. S., 61 Ark. 539, 18 Turner v. S., 70 Ga. 765, 824 Turner v. S., 78 Ga. 174, 693 Turner v. S., 67 Ind. 595, 357 Turner v. S., 102 Ind. 425, 113, 124 Turner v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 452, 852, 853 Turner v. S., 23 Tex. App. 42, 111 Turner v. S., 24 Tex. App. 12, 198 Turner v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 322, 127 Turner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 53. 54, 865 Turpin v. S., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 72, 343 Tuttle V. P., 36 N. Y, 431, 419 Tuttle V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 82, 163 Tuttle V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. Oil, 180 Tuttle V. Wilson, 24 III. 561, 682 Tway V. S., 7 Wyo. 74, 81, 92 Twitchell V. Com., 7 Wall. (U. S.) 321, ' 653 Tyler, In fe, 64 Cal. 431, 436, 457 Tyler, Matter of, 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 159, 440 Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 393, 463 Tyler v. P., Breese (111.) 293, 104 Tyler v. P., 8 Mich. 320, 44, 666 Tyrrell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 1011, 825 Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa. St. 340, 840 tJlrich, Ex parte, 42 Fed. 587, 679 Ulrich V. Com., 6 Bush (Ky.) 400, 367 Umphrey v. S., 63 Ind. 223, 99, 108 Underwood's Case, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 46, 453 Underwood v. S. (Tex.. Cr.), 29 S. W. 777, 310, 311 Unger v. S., 42 Miss. 642, 120, 121 Ungericht v. S., 119 Ind. 379, 355 U. S. v. Abrams, 18 Fed. 823, 262 U. S. V. Allen, 38 Fed. 736, 608 U. S. v. Amedy. 11 Wheat. 392, 656 U. S. V. Ames, 95 Fed. 453, 575, 927 U. S. V. Anonymous, 21 Fed. 761, 441 U. S. V. Anthony, 11 Blatch. 200, ■ 592, 619 U. S. V. Armstrong, 2 Curt. 446, 44 U. S. V. Babcock, 4 McLean 115, 415 U. S. V. BadineMl, 37 Fed. 138, 592 U. S. v. Baker, 5 Blatchf. 6, 612 U. S. T. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671, 674, 743 U. S. V. Bardenheier, 49 Fed. 846, 610 U. S. T. Barnabo, 14 Blatchf. 74, 592 U. S. V. Barrett, 65 Fed. 62, 330 U. S. V. Bayle, 40 Fed. 664, 602 U. S. V. Beatty, 60 Fed. 740, 603 IT. S. T. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 325 U. R. V. Bernard, 84 Fed. 634, 605 U. S. V. Berthea, 44 Fed. 802, 147 U. S. V. Blodgett, 35 Ga. 336, 697 U. S. V. Bonham, 31 Fed. 808, 365 U. S. V. Boston & A. E. Co., 15 Fed. 209 225 U.^S. V. Bott, 11 Blatchf. 346, 494 U. S. V. Boyd, 45 Fed. 851, 317, 687 IJ. S. V. Brazeau, 78 Fed. 464, 604 U. S. V. Brltton, 108 U. S. 199, 322 U. S. V. Brooks, 4 Cranch 428, 290 U. S. f. Brooks, 3 McArth. 315, 248, 262 U. S. V. Brown, 43 Fed. 135, 602 U. S. V. Brown, 58 Fed. 558, 595 U. S. V. Brown, 6 Utah 115, ■ 426 U. S. V. Burley, 14 Blatchf. 91, 588 U. S. V. Burns, 5 McLean 23, 262 D. S. V. Burns. 54 Fed. 351, 350 U. S. V. Calhoun, 39 Fed. 604, 60S U. S. V. Campbell, 16 Fed. 233, 602 U. S. V. Campe, 89 Fed. 697, 608 U. S. V. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 250, 703 U. S. V. Carr, 1 Woods 480, 11 U. S. V. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698, 315, 326, 330, 601 U. S. V. Caton, 1 Cranch 150, 437 U. S. V. Chase, 135 U. S. 255, 655 U. S. V. Church, 6 Utah 9, 429, 439, 441 U. S. V. Clarke, 38 Fed. 500, 554, 555 U. S. V. Clew, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 700, 106 U. S. V. Cline, 26 Fed. 515, 385 U. S. V. Collins, 79 Fed. 65, 722 U. S. V. Connell, 2 Mason 91, 763 U. S. V. Connelly, 1 Fed. 779, 859 U. S. V. Conrad, 59 Fed. 458, 603 U. S. V. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 143, 710, 711 U. S. V. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 667 U. S. V. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671, 413 U. S. V. Davenport. Deady 264, 902 D. S. V. Davis, 37 Fed. 468, 608 U. S. V. Davis, 38 Fed. 326, 555 U. S. V. Deaver, 14 Fed. 599, 399 TABLE OP CASES. CV IReferences are to Pages."] V. S. V. Debs. 64 Fed. 724, 321, 438, 441, 452, 453 tr. S. V. Debs, 65 Fed. 210, 601 U. S. V. De Groat, 30 Fed. 764, 109 V. g. V. Dodge, 70 Fed. 235, 602 U. S. V. Donau, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,983. 325 U. S. V. Dorsey, 40 Fed. 752, 147 U. S. V. Durnell, 75 Fed. 824, 602 U. S. V. Durkee, 1 McAll. 196, 100 U. S. V. Dwyer, 56 Fed. 464, 591, 598 V. S. V. Edgerton, 80 Fed. 374, 697, 718 IT. S. V. Edwards, 43 Fed. 67, 420 U. S. V. Egan, 30 Fed. 498, 591, 594 tf. S. V. Eight Cases o£ Paper, 98 Fed. 416, 609 U. S. V. Elder, 4 Cranch 508, 301 U. S. v. Evans, 19 Fed. 912, 409 U. S. v. Evans, 2 West Coast R. 611, 422 718 624 631 927 607 690 XT. S. V. Farrington, 5 Fed. 343, U. S. V. Faulkner, 35 Fed. 731, tJ. S. V. Finlay, 1 Abb. 364, U. S. V. Fox, 3 Mont. 512, tr. S. V. Fraser, 42 Fed. 140, U. S. V. French, 1 Gall. 1, U. S. V. Fulkerson, 74 Fed. 619, 603, 604 T). S. V. Fuller, 72 Fed. 771, 558, 604 U. S. V. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184, 612 ft. S. V. Garcelon, 82 Fed. 611, 416 U. S. V. Gardner, 42 Fed. 829, 325 ft. S. V. Garretson, 42 Fed. 22, 657 V. S. V. Gilbert, 2 Sum. 19, 743 TJ. S. V. Glab, 99 U. S. 225, 370 tJ. S. V. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 469, 327 V. S. V. Gordon, 22 Fed. 250, 324 TJ. S. V. Greve, 65 Fed. 488, 149 U. S. V. Guiteau, 10 Fed. 161, 666, 834 U. S. V. Gunnell, 5 Mackey 196, 327 TJ. S. V. Gunther, 5 Dak. 234, 95 U. S. V. Hall, 44 Fed. 864, 423 TJ. S. V. Hand, 2 Wash. (C. C.) 435, 46 U. S. V. Harding, 1 Wall. Jr. 127, 883 TJ. S. V. Harman, 38 Fed. 827, 555 TJ. S. V. Harmon, 45 Fed. 414, 556 ft. S. V. Harris, 68 Fed. 347, 605 V. S. V. Harris, 5 Utah 436, 514 TJ. S. V. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 142, 143 tJ. S. V. Higgerson, 46 Fed. 750, 505, 514 TJ. S. V. Hinman, 1 Baldw. 292, 263 U. S. V. Hopkins, 26 Fed. 443, 262 TJ. S. T. Howard, 37 Fed. 666, 417 TJ. S. V. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 429 U. S. V. Huilsman, 94 Fed. 486, 602 TJ. S. V. Hutchins, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,430, 316 TJ. S. V. Ingham, 97 Fed. 935, 390 TT. S. V. Jaoksoh, 20 D. C. 424, 415 TJ. S. V. Jacques, 55 Fed. 53, 596 U. S. V. Jones, 80 Fed. 513, 147, 606 TJ. S. V. Jones, 3 Wash. (C. C.) 228, 612 V. S. V. Jose, 63 Fed. 951, 452 TJ. S. V. Kane, 23 Fed. 748, 462 TJ. S. V. Kessel, 62 Fed. 57, 390 TJ. S. V. liing, 5 McLean 208, 262 TJ. S. V. Klintock, 5 Wheat. 144, 612 U. S. V. Lackey, 99 Fed. 952, ■ 669 TJ. S. V. Lamkin, 73 Fed. 459, 602 TJ. S. V. Lancaster, 44 Fed. 896, 316, 325, 330 U. S. V. Landsberg, 23 Fed. 585, 410 TJ. S. V. Langford, 2 Idaho 519, TJ. S. V. Lee, 4 Cranch 446, TJ. S. V. Lee, 12 Fed. 816, p. S. V. Lee, 90 Fed. 256, V..S. V. Lehman, 39 Fed. 49, tr. S. V. Ling, 61 Fed. 1001, 514 111 135 603 421 603 U. S. V. Long, 30 Fed. 678, 246, 247 U. S. V. Long, 68 Fed. 348, 605 U. S. V. Loring, 91 Fed. 881, 601, 605 U. S. V. Loughery, 13 Blatchf. 267, 761 U. S. V. Ma*ard, 40 Fed. 151, 41!) D. S. V. Manion, 44 Fed. 800, 412, 416 D. S. V. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 480, 743 U. S. V. Martin, 50 Fed. 918, 603 U. S. V. McCabe, 58 Fed. 557, 595 II. S. V. McCarthy, 18 Fed. 87, 440 TJ. S. V. McDonald, 59 Fed. 563, 604 U. S. V. McDonald, 65 Fed. 486, 603 U. S. V. McGill, 4 Dill. 427, 44 D. S. V. Meagher, 37 Fed. 875, 9 U. S. V. Milner, 36 Fed. 890, 325 U. S. V. Miner, 11 Blatchf. 511, 676 U. S. V. Mitchell, Bald. 366, 253, 263 U. S. V. Mitchell, 36 Fed. 492, 603 U. S. V. Morrow, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 738, 262, 819 U. S. V. Nardello, 4 Mackey 503, 813 D. S. V. Nathan, 61 Fed. 936, 603 U. S. V. Newton, 52 Fed. 275, 316, 329, 381 TJ. S. V. 9 Casks & Packages, etc., 51 Fed. 191, 609 D. S. V. Nye, 4 Fed. 888, 723 U. S. V. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 631, 655 U. S. V. Peace, 53 Fed. 999, 608 U. S. V. Pettus, 84 Fed. 791, 414, 417, 420, 421 U. S. V. Pirates, 5 Wheat. 184, 612 U. S. V. Polite, 35 Fed. 59, 722 U. S. V. Politzer, 59 Fed. 273, 604 TJ. S. V. Eauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 918 919 U. S. V. Eeichert, 32 Fed. 142, ' 316 U. S. V. Reid, 73 Fed. 289, 558, 604 U. S. V. Reynolds, 1 Utah 226, 511 U. S. V. Ross, 1 Gall. 624, 612 U. S. y. Roudeubush, Baldw. 514, 259 U. S. v. Safford, 66 Fed. 942, 603 U. S. V. Sauer, 88 Fed. 249, 606 U. S. V. Saunders, 77 Fed. 170, 602 U. S. V. Schneider, 21 D. C. 381, 859 872 U. S. V. Scott, 74 Fed. 212, ' 402 U. S. V. Sears, 55 Fed. 268, 601 U. S. V. Simmons, 96 U. S. 362, 702, 703 U. S. V. Singleton, 54 Fed. 488, 410 U. S. V. Slenker, 32 Fed. 691, 556, 559, 606 U. S. y. Smith, 124 U. S. 525, 143 U. S. V. Smith, 45 Fed. 115, 365, 555, 608 U. S, V. Smith, 69 Fed. 971, 602, 603 U. S. V. Smith, 4 Day (Conn.) 121, 440 U. S. V. Smith, 11 Utah 433, 604 U. S. V. Snyder, 14 Fed. 554, 178 U. S. V. Sprague, 48 Fed. 828, 254, 262 U. S. V. Starnes, 37 Fed. 665, 608 U. S. V. Stevens, 2 Hask. 164, 321 U. S. V. Stevens, 52 Fed. 120, 262 U. S. V. Stowell, 133 D. S. 1, 609 U. S. V. Sweeney, 95 Fed. 434, 316 U. S. V. Sykes, 58 Fed. 1000, 608 U. S. V. Ta£Ee, 86 Fed. 113, 323 U. S. V. Taintor, 11 Blatchf. 374, 143, 147 U. S. v. Tallipan, 10 Blatchf. 21, 699 U. S. V. Taylor, 57 Fed. 391, 594 U. S. V. Tenney (Ariz.), 8 Pac. 295, 505, 514 U. S. V. Terry, 42 Fed. 317, 405 U. S. V. Thomas, 47 Fed. 807, 472 U. S. V. Tubbs, 94 Fed. 356, 605 U. S. V. TuHy, 1 Gall. 247, 612 CVl TABLE OF CASES. IReferences are to Pages.1 V. S. V. Tureaud, 20 Fed. 621, 722 U. S. V. Van Fossen, 1 Dill. 406, 690 tr. S. V. Van Leuven, 62 Fed. 62, 390 U. S. V. Volz, 14 Blatchf. 15, 412 TJ. S. V. Wallis, 58 Fed. 942, 604 U. S. V. Walsh, 1 Abb. 66, 876 V. S. V. Walter Scott, 87 Fed. 721, 606 TJ. S. V. Warden, 49 Fed. 914, 593 U. S. V. Warner, 26 Fed. 616, 143 U. S. V. Watts, 14 Fed. 130, 918 U. S. T. White, 42 Fed. 138, 608 U. S. V. Wilcox, 4 Blatchf. 393, 409 V. S. V. Williams, 4 Hiss. 302, 262 TJ. S. V. Williams, 57 Fed. 201, 602 U. S. V. Williams, 76 Fed. 223, 394 TJ. S. V. Wilson, Bald. 85, 769 U. S. V. Wilson, 60 Fed. 890, 316 U. S. V. Wilson, 69 Fed. 144, 608 TJ. S. V. Witberger, 3 Wash. (C. C.) 515, 11 U. S. V. Wood, 44 Fed. 753, 422 U. S. V. Wood, 70 Fed. 485, 411 U. S. V. Wight, 38 Fed. 106, 147 U. S. V. Wright, 2 Cranch 68, 252 U. S. V. Yennie, 74 Fed. 221, 602, 605 Unsell V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 330, 127 Upstone V. P., 109 111. 175, 21, 617, 793 TJrquhart v. S., 103 Ala. 90, 414 Usom V. S., 97 Ga. 194, 220 TJsselton v. P., 149 111. 612, 636, 637, 638, 706, 707 TJtley V. Donaldson, 94 D. S. 29, 827 Utterback v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1515, 628 Vale V. P., 161 111. 311, 121, 869 Vallery v. S., 42 Meb. 123, 335 Van Blarleum v. P., 16 111. 364, 773 Van Buren v. S., 24 Miss. 512, 813 Vance, In re, 88 Cal. 262, 463 Vance v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 395, 108 Vancleave v. S., 150 111. 273, 898 Vandermark t. P., 47 111. 123, 3, 48, 58, 715, 902 Vanderpool t. S., 34 Ark. 174, 72 Vanderworker v. S., 13 Ark. 700, 306 Vandeventer v. S., 38 Neb. 592, 643 Van Dusen v. P., 78 III. 646, 413, 425, 427 Van Emons v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 1106, 123 Van Etten v. S., 24 Neb. 734, 143 Van Eyck v. P., 178 111. 199, 179 Van Fossen v. S., 37 Ohio St. 317, 511 Van Horn v. S., 5 Wyo. 501, 731 Van Houten v. S., 46 N. J. L. 16, 38 Van Houton v. P., 22 Colo. 53, 865 Van Meter v. P., 60 111. 169, 729 732 904 Vanpool V. Com., 13 Pa. St. 391, ' 279 Van Selever, In re., 42 Neb. 772, 923 Van Straaten v. P., 26 Colo. 184, 122 Van Tassel v. S., 59 Wis. 351, 522 Vanvactor v. S., 113 Ind. 276, 53, 59 Vanvalkenburg v. S., 11 Ohio 404, 266 Van Valkenburgh v. Doolittle, 4 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 72, 462 Van Walker v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 359, 197 Van Wezel v. Van Wezel, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 113, 458 Varnadoe v. S., 67 Ga. 768, 731 Varnedoe v. S., 75 Ga. 181, 32 Vass T. Com,, 3 Leigh (Va.) 786, 28, 33 Vaiighan v. Com., 86 Ky. 431, 23 Vaughan v. S., 83 Ala. 55, 502 Veain v. P., 140 111. 397, 229 Veatch v. S., 60 Ind. 291, 902 Veneman v. Jones, 118 Ind. 41, 685 Vermont E. Co. v. Vermont, etc., E. Co., 46 Vt. 792, 432 Verplank v. Hall, 21 Mich. 469, 452 Vertner v. Martin. 18 Miss. 103, 450 Vess V. S., 93 Ind. 211, 278 Vick V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 1117, 881 Vickers v. Hill, 1 Scam. (HI.) 307, 438, 79R Vilas V. Burton, 27 Vt. 56, 432 Village of Cofteen v. Huber, 78 111. App. 455, 385 Village of Coulterville v. Glllen, 72 111. 602, 662 Village of Genoa v. Van Alstine, 108 111. 558, 368 Village of Oran v. Bles, 52 Mo. App. 509, 685 Vincent, Ex parte, 26 Fla. 145, 202 Vincent v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 602, 46S Vincent v. S., 37 Neb. 672, 871 Vincent v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 819, 368 Virginia, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 339, 650, 925 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 65S Vise V. County of Hamilton, 19 111. 78 755 Vives V. D. S., 92 Fed. 355, 603 Voght V. S., 145 Ind. 12, 572, 832 Von Rueden v. S., 96 Wis. 671, 290 Voorhees, In re, 32 N. J. L. 141, 917 923 Vose V. Eeed, 1 Woods (U. S.) 647, ' 442 Vowells V. Com., 83 Ky. 193, 304 W Wabash, etc., E. Co. v. P., 106 111. 652 912 Wabash E. Co., In re, 24 Fed. 217, 438 Wacaser v. P., 134 111. 442, 867, 870 Waddell v. S., 37 Tex. 356, 310 Wade V. Judge, 5 Ala. 130, 932 Wadge, In re, 16 Fed. 332, 923 Wadley v. Com., 97 Va. 803, 928 Wadley v. Com., 98 Va. 803, 718 Waggoner v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 199, 532 Waggoner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 491, 41 Wagner v. S., 107 Ind. 71, 830, 831 Wagner v. S., 116 Ind. 181, 790 Wagoner t. S., 63 Ind. 250, 593 Wagoner v. S., 90 Ind. 504, 157, 170, 659 Wagoner v. Ter. (Ariz.), 51 Pac. 145, 27, 30 Wait V. S., 09 Ala. 164, 194 Wakefield v. Com., 7 Ky. L. 295, 566 Wakefield v. Moore, 65 Ga. 268, 465 Wakeman v. Chambers, 69 Iowa 169, 368 Walahan v. P., 40 111. 104, 912 Walbnrn v. Ter., 9 Okla. 23, 312 Waldron v. S., 41 Fla. 265, 36, 760 Waldrop v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 130, 516 Walker, In re, 82 N. C. 95, 453 Walker v. Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 969, 120, 206 Walker v. P., 133 HI. 115, 40, 624 Walker v. P., 88 N. Y. 81, 622, 642 Walker v. Special Session, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 441, 224 Walker v. S., 52 Ala. 376, 193 Walker v. S., 63 Ala. 49, 194 TABLE OF CASES. evil [References are to Pages.'} ■Walker v. S., 73 Ala. 18, Walker v. S., 89 Ala. 74, Walker v. S., 91 Ala. 76, 469, 471, Walker v. S., 97 Ala. 85, Walker v. S., 104 Ala. 56, Walker v. S., 107 Ala. 5, Walker v. S., 108 Ala. 56, 520, Walker v. S., Ill Ala. 29, Walker v. S., 117 Ala. 42, 148, Walker v. S., 34 Fla. 167, AValker v. S., 28 Ga. 254, Walker v. S., 97 Ga. 350, Walker v. S., 8 Ind. 290, 3 Walker v. S., 92 Ind. 474, Walker v. S., 102 Ind. 502, Walker v. S., 136 Ind. 663, 726, 811, Walker v. S., 2 Swan (Tenn.) 287, Walker v. S., 42 Tex. 360, Walker t. Walker, 34 Ala. 469, Walker v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 260, Walkup V. Com., 14 Ky. L. 337, Wall v. S., 51 Ind. 453, Wall V. S., 18 Tex. 682, Wallace v. P., 27 111. 45, Wallace v. P., 63 111. 452, 116, 117, Wallace v. P., 159 111. 452, Wallace v. S., 54 Ark. 542, Wallace v. S., 41 Pla. 547, i., 110 Ga. 284, 671, Wallace v. S, Wallace v. S., 147 Ind. 621, Wallace v. S., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 542, Wallace v. Young, 21 Ky. 155, Wallahan v. P., 40 111. 103, Waller v. Com., 84 Va. 492, Waller v. P., 175 111. 222, 113, Waller v. S., 40 Ala. 325, 902 Waller v. S., 38 Ark. 656, Walling V. Michigan, 116 V. S. 446, Wallis V. S., 54 Ark. 611, Wallig V. Talmadge, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 443, Walls V. S., 32 Ark. 565. Walsh, In re, 37 Neb. 454, 257, Walsh V. P., 65 III. 63, 388, 389, 394, 787, 793, Walster v. TJ. S., 42 Fed. 891,. Walston V. Com., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 15, Walston V. S., 54 Ga. 242, Walfer T. S., 105 Ind. 589, 827, Walters v. S., 39 Ohio St. 215, Walton V. Canon City, 14 Colo. App. 352, Walton V. Develing, 61 111. 206, 445, Walton V. S., 64 Miss. 207, 293, Walton V. S., 14 Tex. 381, Walton T. Walton, 54 N. J. Eq. 607, Wamble v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 24, Wandling v. Thompson, 41 N. J. L. 142, Ward, Ex parte, 173 U. S. 452, Ward V. Arenson, 23 N. Y. Super. (10 Bos.) 589, Ward T. P., 23 III. App. 510, Ward T. P., 30 Mich. 116, Ward V. S., 78 Ala. 441, Ward V. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 101, Ward y. S., 48 Ind. 289, Ward V. S., 2 Mo. 120, Ward T. S., 17 Ohio St. 32, Ward V. S., 102 Tenn. 724, 766, Ward V. S., 51 Tex. 611, Ward T. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 250, Ward V. Ter., 8 Okla. 12, Ward V. Ward, 70 Vt. 430, Ward V. Wilms, 16 Colo. 86, Ware v. S., 59 Ark. 379, 60 227 726 206 501 426 529 117 154 19 123 624 , 48 523 835 872 566 33 805 445 729 627 728 256 712 893 362 862 884 72 167 233 913 59 841 903 365 374 149 463 511 891 831 147 24 902 828 615 368 464 583 562 441 256 462 930 449 572 777 26 25 720 437 566 770 123 331 744 459 745 615 Ware v. S., 35 N. J. L. 553, 784 Warmoth v. Com., 81 Ky. 133, 106, 138 Warner v. Fowler, 8 Md. 25, 411 Warner v. Grace, 14 Minn. 487, 685 Warner v. Perry, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 337, 224 Warner v. S., 56 N. J. L. 686, 618, 888 Warner v. S., 81 Tenn. 52, 464 Warrain v. Smith, 2 Buls. 136, 883 Warren y. Com., 99 Ky. 370, 800 Warren v. McCarthy, 25 III. 88, 908 Warren v. S., 94 Ala. 79, 307 Warren v. S., 33 Tex. 517, 52 Warrlner v. P., 74 III. 346, 145, 150, 704 Warriner v. S., 3 Tex. App. 104, 080 Wartelsky v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 1079, 572 Wartman v. Wartman, Taney's Dec. 362, 442 Wartner v. S., 102 Ind. 51, 751 Warwick v. S., 48 Ark. 27, 355 Washington v. S., 60 Ala. 10, 4, 773 Washington v. S., 68 Ala. 85, 234, 239 Washington v. S., 72 Ala. 272, 138 Washington v. S., 82 Ala. 31. 232 Washington v. S., 117 Ala. 30, 902 Washington v. S., 87 Ga. 12, 235 Washington v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 154, 886 Waterloo v. P., 170 III. 488, 528 Waterman v. P., 67 111. 92, 248, 253 Waters v. P., 23 Colo. 33. 226 Waters v. P., 104 111. 544, 118, 120 Waters v. P., 172 111. 371, 782, 836. 863 Waters v. S., 53 Ga. 567, 193, 212, 852 Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315, 646 Watkins v. Carlton, 10 Leigh (Va.) 560, 526 Watkins v. S., 68 Ind. 427. 680 Watrous v. Kearney, 79 N. Y. 496, 450 Watson, In re, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 466, 453 459 Watson, In re, 19 R. I. 342, ' 512 Watson V. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 5 S. C. 159, 441, 442 Watson V. P., 27 III. App. 493, 158, 170, 929 Watson V. P., 87 N. Y 564, 162, 165, 167, 168, 177 Watson V. S., 83 Ala. 60. 53 Watson V. S., 63 Ind. 548. 27, 778 Watson V. S., Ill Ind. 599, 577 Watson V. S., 36 Miss. 593, 112 Watson T. S., 39 Ohio St. 123, 392, 395 Watson T. S., 9 Tex. App. 237, 494 Watson V. S., 13 Tex. App. 76, 514 Watson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 185. ' 13X Watson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 50 S. W. 340, 291 Watson V. Williams, 36 Miss. 331. 463 Watt V. P., 126 111. 9. 787, 842 Watt V. S., 97 Ala. 72, 467 Wattingham v. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 64, 876 Watts V. Owens, 62 Wis. 512, 523 Watts V. S., 5 W. Va. 532, 317, 318, 328 Waver v. S., 108 Ga. 775, 898 Wax V. S., 43 Neb. 22, 176 Weatherford v. P., 67 111. 521, 667 Weatherman v. Com., 91 Va. 796, 908 Weaver v. Carter, 101 Ga. 206, 903 Weaver v. P., 132 111. 536, 632 Weaver v. P., 33 Mich. 296, 664, 889 Weaver v. S., 77 Ala. 26, 99 Weaver v. S., 83 Ind. 289, 670 Weaver v. S., 154 Ind. 1, 727 Weaver v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 554, 415 fcviii TABLE OF CASES. IBeferences are to Pages.'] Webb, In re, 89 Wis. 354, 661, 664 Webb T. Com., 87 Ky. 129, 204 Webb V. Com., 18 Ky. L. 220, 193, 196 Webb V. S., 100 Ala. 47, 50 Webb T. S., 73 Miss. 456, 38 Webb v. S. (Miss.), 21 So. 133, 548, 551 Webb T. S., 51 N. J. L. 189, 684, 686 Webb T. S., 4 Tex. App. 167, 690 Webb T. S., 8 Tex. App. 115, 124 Webb V. S., 8 Tex. App. 310, 134, 145 Webb V. S., 9 Tex. App. 490, 738, 868 Webb T. S., 24 Tex. App. 164, 502, 506 Webb v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 41, 57 Webb V. Yorlj, 79 Fed. 616, 921 Webber v. Com.. 119 Pa. St. 223, 620 Vi'ebster v. P., 92 N. Y. 427, 180 Wedge V. S., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 687, 119 Weeber v. U. S., 62 Fed. 740, 603 Weeks v. Smith, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 211, 452 Weeks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 905, 132 Weems v. S., 84 Ga. 461, 508 Weighorst t. S., 7 Md. 450, 907 Weimer v. P., 186 111. 506, 153, 154, 631, 752 Welnzorpflin v. S., 7 Blaekf. (Ind.) 186, 891, 900 Weis T. S., 22 Ohio St. 486, 900 Weisbrodt v. S., 50 Ohio St. 192, 360 Weiss V. P., 104 III. 90, 914 Welborn v. P., 76 111. 518, 909 Welburn v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 651, 52 Welch V. Com., 90 Va. 318, 725 Welch V. P., 38 III. 20, 432 Welch V. P., 30 111. App. 399, 441 Welch V. S., 124 Ala. 41, 625 Welch V. S., 104 Ind. 347, 710, 789, 799, 821 Welch V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 46 S. W. 812, 79 Welch V. Stowell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 332 ' 491 Weldo'n v. Burch, 12 III. 374, 440 Wellcome, In re, 23 Mont. 450, 396 Wcller V. P., 30 Mich 16, 8, 38, 41 Weller v. Snover, 42 N. J. L. 341, 274 Weller t. S., 53 Ohio St. 77, 476 Wellman v. S., 100 Ga. 576, 132 Wells V. Com., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 501, 442, 453 Wells V. S., 11 Neb. 409, 116 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oreg. Ry. & Nav. Co., 19 Fed. 20, 430, 462 Welsh Y. P., 17 in. 339, 108, 143, 158 Welsh V. S., 126 Ind. 71, 361 Welsh V. S. (Neb.), 82 N. W. 368, 735 901 Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, ' 374 Welton y. S., 1 Otto (U. S.) 275, 652 Wentworth v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 555, 53, 404 Werley v. S., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 171, Wert V. Clutter, 37 Ohio St. 347, 480 Wesley v. S., 61 Ala. 282, 114 Wesley v. S., 37 Miss. 327, 829 West y. P., 137 111. 204. 702, 703, 704, 705, 717, 723 West V. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 430, 779, 824 West V. S., 84 Ga. 527, 527 West y. S., 48 Ind. 483, 19 West y. S., 59 Ind. 113, 628 West y. S., 22 N. J. L. 212, 256, 913 West y. S., 1 Wis. 209, 546, 549 95 Westbrook v. P., 126 III. 81, 23, 26, 29, 32, 818 Westchester Co. y. Dressner, 48 N. Y. Supp. 953, 482 Westmoreland y. S., 45 Ga. 225, 900 Weston V. Com., Ill Pa. St. 251, 316, 771 West Point Water Power, etc., Co. y. S., 49 Neb. 218, 275 Weyman y. P., 4 Hun (N. T.) 516, 159, 178 Weyrich v. P., 89 Ilh 94, 28, 31, 38, 736 Whalen y. Com., 90 Va. 544, 115 Whaley y. S.. 87 Ala. 83, 362 Wharton y. Stoutenburgh, 39 N. J. Bq. 299, ' 445 Wheeler y. Com., 86 Va. 658, 220 Wheeler v. S., 4 Md. 563, 570 Wheeler y. S., 64 Miss. 462, 631 Wheeler y. S., 76 Miss. 265, 190 Whicker v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 47, 506 Whitaker y. S., 79 Ga. 87, 23, 27 Whitaker v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 479, 424 Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 118, 437 455 Whitcomb v. S., 30 Tex. App. 269,' 354 871 White, In re, 55 Fed. 54, 917, 918| 923 White, Bx parte, 49 Cal. 433, 920 White, Ex parte, 15 Ney. 146, 90S White y. Com., 80 Ky. 480, 730 White y. Com., 96 Ky. 180, 74, 75 White y. Com., 6 Binn. (Pa.) 179, 762 White y. Hermann, 51 111. 243, 437 White y. Kent, 11 Ohio St. 550, 684 White V. P., 81 III. 336, 631, 637, 638, 743, 913 White V. P., 90 111. 118, 749 White V. P., 93 111. 473, 59 White y. P., 139 111. 139, 637 White y. P., 179 111. 358, 201, 715 White y. S., 72 Ala. 195, 121, 200 White V. S., 74 Ala. 31, 502 White y. S., 86 Ala. 69, 726 White V. S., 103 Ala. 72, 379, 391 White V. S., Ill Ala. 92. 23, 27, 33 White y. S., 53 Ind. 595, 635 White y. S., 136 Ind. 308, 78 White y. S., 52 Miss. 216, 782, 785, 796, 836, 910 White V. S., 3 Heisk. CTenn.) 338, 816 White y. S., 13 Tex. 133, 468 White y.' S., 1 Tex. App. 211, 204 White y. S., 21 Tex. App. 339, 120 White y. S., 24 Tex. App. 231, 117, 850 White y. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 269, 563, 564, 571 White V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 100, 130, 813 White y. Wagar, 185 111. 195, 254 Whitebreast Fuel Co. y. P., 175 111. 51, 647 Whitefleld v. S., 25 Fla. 289, 245 Whitehead y. Com., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 640. 693 Whitehead y. Reg., 7 Q. B. 582, 876 Whitehead y. S., 20 Fla. 841, 127, 131 Whitehead v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 89, 335, 336, 340 Whitehurst v. S., 43 Ind. 473, 631 Whiteside y. Lowney, 171 Mass. 431, 107 Whiteside v. S., 4 Coldw. (44 Tenn.) 175, 232, 707 Whitesides v. P., Breese (111.) 21, 342, 711, 716 Whitfield V. S., 4 Ark. 171, 570 TABLE OF CASES. CIX [References are to Pages.'i Whiting V. S., 48 Ohio St. 220, 128 Whitley V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 172, 53 Whitlock V. Com., 89 Va. 337, 484 Whitlock V. S., 4 Ind. App. 432, 541 Whitman v. Haines, 4 N. Y. Supp. 48, 462 Whitman v. S., 34 Ind. 360, 527 Whitman v. Weller, 39 Ind. 515, 833 Whltmore, In re, 9 Utah 441, 463 Whitmore t. S., 43 Arls. 271, 670 Whitney v. Houghton, 125 Mass. 451, 819 Whitney v. S., 35 Ind. 506, 86 Whitney v. S., 154 Ind. 573, 746, 885 Whitney v. S., 53 Neb. 287, 141 Whitney v. Whitney, 58 N. Y. Supr. 335 456 Whitt'aker v. S., 50 Wis. 518, 78, 86 Whitten v. Spiegel, 67 Conn. 551, 931 Whittem v. S., 36 Ind. 196, 428. 443, 447, 449, 453, 459 Whitten v. S., 47 Ga. 297, 787 Whitton V. S., 37 Miss. 379, 365 Wickersham v. P., 1 Scam. (lil.) 129, 400, 713 Wickwlre v. S., 19 Conn. 477, 437 Widner t. S., 25 Ind. 234, 130 Wiedemann V. P„ 92 lil. 314, 377,710 Wiggins V. P., 93 U. S. 465, 36 Wiggins V. S., 84 Ga. 488, 731 Wiggins v. S., 1 Lea (Tenn.) 738, 765, Wightman v. Wightman, 45 111. 167, 445, Wllber V. Seiden, 6 Cow. (N. T.) 162, Wilbur V. Wilbur, 129 111. 392, Wilburn v. Hail, 16 Mo. 168, Wiibura V. S., 21 Ark. 201, Wilburn v. S., 41 Tex. 237. Wilcox V. Nolze, 34 Ohio St. 520, Wilcox v. S., 101 Ga. 563, Wilcox V. S., 46 Neb. 402, 437, Wilcox V. S., 102 Wis. 650, Wilcox Silver-Plate Co. v. Schimmel 59 Mich. 525, 432, Wilder v. Com., 81 Ky. 591, Wildon V. Burch, 12 IW. 375, Wiierson v. S., 73 Ga. 799, Wiles V. S., 33 Ind. 206, Wiley V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. W, 995, Wilford V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 414, Wilhelm v. P., 72 111. 471, _ 728, 730, 759, 761, Wilkerson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 49, Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, Wiikey v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 578, Wilkins v. Metcalf, 71 Vt. 103, Wilkins v. S., 60 Miss. 323, Wilkinson v. S., 69 Ind. 416, 356, Wilkinson v. S., 77 Miss. 705, Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 299, Wilks V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 902, Willey V. S., 52 Ind. 246, Williams, Ex parte, 121 Cal. 328 Williams, Ex parte, 26 Fla. 310 889, Williams' Case 2 Gratt. (Va.) 568, Williams v. Bacon, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 636, Williams v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 663, Williams v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1427, Williams v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1850, Williams v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 612, 805 459 787 863 828 693 204 918 224 456 92 442 64 794 207 371 218 822 762 426 651 81 523 109 357 708 560 '212 496 181 890 905 920 311 59 219 36 Williams v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 493, 409 423 Com., 27 Gratt (Va.) Williams v. 997, Williams v. 859, Williams v. Williams t. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams y. 129, Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams V. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams V. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams y. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams V. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams V. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. 376, Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. Williams v. W. 609, Williams v. Williams v. 532, Williams v. 271, Williams v. 494, Williams v. 500, Com. (Va.), 22 S. E. Gait, 95 111. 172, Lampkins, 53 Ga. 200, P., 26 Colo. 272, P., 44 111. 481, 776, P., 54 111. 424, 12, 317, P., 101 111. 385. 187. 701, 807, 810, 811, P., 118 111. 444, 914, P., 121 111. 90, 480, P., 164 HI. 483, 729, 857, 861, 884, P., 166 111. 134, 642, S., 26 Ala. 85, S., 44 Ala. 24, S., 54 Ala. 131, S., 67 Ala. 183, S., 81 Ala. 1, 316, 626, S., 83 Ala. 68, S., 91 Ala. 14, S., 109 Ala. 64, 772, S., 113 Ala. 58, 523, S., 117 Ala. 199, S., 47 Ark. 230, S., 66 Ark. 264, S., 18 Fla. 883, S., 20 Pla. 777, S., 41 Fla. 295, 130, 781, S. (Fla.), 26 So. 184, S., 51 Ga. 535, 253, S., 52 Ga. 580, S., 55 Ga. 391, S., 60 Ga. 445, S., 67 Ga. 260, S., 100 Ga. 511, S., 105 Ga. 608, 104, 163, S., 107 Ga. 693, S., 60 Md. 402, 899, 904, S., 64 Md. 384, 40, 803, 804, S., 42 Miss. 328, S., 63 Miss. 58, S., 6 Neb. 334, S., 46 Neb. 704, 779, S., 51 Neb. 711, S., 14 Ohio 222, 79, S., 12 Ohio St., 622, 662, S., 3 Helsk. (Tenn.) S., 92 Tenn. 275. 561, S. (Tex.), 19 S. W. 897, S., 10 Tex. App. 114, e. . 217, S., 19 Tex. App. 276, S., 24 Tex. App. 17, S., 25 Tex. App. 733, S., 28 Tex. App. 301, S., 30 Tex. App. 354, S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 147, 378, S. (Tex. Cr.) 32 S. W. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 42, S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 215, 424 816 585 432 465 420 902 695 852 927 808 886 825 108 514 514 203 836 291 383 785 524 518 328 84 520 79 888 52 254 209 619 209 511 354 294 375 905 821 703 99 904 858 220 584 777 857 573 498 726 814 468 136 410 766 209 813 264 563 132 865 ex TABLE OF CASES. [References are to Pages.} Williams v. S., 61 Wis. 292, 751 Williams v. U. S., 137 U. S. 113, 884 WilUams t. U. S., 168 U. S. 382, 396 Williams v. Williams, 8 N. Y. 535, 655 Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. St. 9, 445, 456 Williamson v. Carnan, 1 Gill & J. (Md.) 184, 445 Williamson v. Com. (Va.), 23 S. E. 762, 189 Williamson v. S., 5 Tex. App. 485, 57 WiWiamson t. S., 13 Tex. App. 514, 127 Williamson v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 60, 194 Willingham v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 98, 824 Willis V. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 401, 715 Willis V. S., 93 Ga. 208, 813 Willis v. S., 105 Ga. 633, 308 Willis V. S. (Miss.), 27 So. 524, 54 Willis V. S.. 32 Tex. Cr. 534, 235 Willis V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 148, 301, 303 Wilson's Case, 7 Q. B. 984, 428 Wilson, Ex parte, 114 V. S. 417, 721, 877, 925 Wilson, In re, 75 Cal. 580, 443, 458 Wilson, In re (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 609, 690 Wilson V. Com., 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 2, 300, 301 Wilson V. Com., 3 Bush (Ky.) 105, 55 Wilson V. Com., 10 Serg. & B. (Pa.) 373, 401 Wilson V. Judge, 18 Ala. 757, 520 Wilson V. P., 3 Colo. 325, 730 Wilson V. P., 94 111. 327, 11, 327, 758. 777, 864, 909 Wilson V. P., 24 Mich. 410, 60 Wilson V. P., 39 N. Y. 459, 100 Wilson T. S., 61 Ala. 151, 468 Wilson v. S., 68 Ala. 41, 310 Wilson V. S., 73 Ala. 527, 544, 546, 549 Wilson V. S., 110 Ala. 1, 835 Wilson V. S., 113 Ala. 104, 562 Wilson T. S., 35 Ark. 414, 370 Wilson T. S., 62 Ark. 497, 842 Wilson V. S„ 24 Conn. 57, 213, 670 Wilson V. S., 55 Ga. 324, 57, 207 Wilson V. S., 66 Ga. 591, 114, 896 Wilson T. S., 57 Ind. 71, 437, 441, 454 Wilson T. S. (Ind.), 59 N. B. 380, 174 Wilson V. S., 2 Ohio St. 319, 493 Wilson V. S., 3 Heisk. (59 Tenn.) 278, 296, 297 Wilson V. S., 103 Tenn. 87, 83 Wilson V. S., 43 Tex. 472, 809 Wilson V. S., 45 Tex. 77, 111, 719 Wilson V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 64, 59 Wilson v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 64, 789 Wilson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 290, 200 Wilson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 916. 698 Wilson V. Ter., 1 Wyo. 155, ' 447 Wilson T. U. S., 149 U. S. 60, 910 Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613, 840 Wimbish v. S., 89 Ga. 294, 199 Winkelman v. P., 50 111. 451, 756 Winn V. S., 55 Ark. 360, 279 Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Schueller, 60 111. 465, 777 Winnett v. S., 18 Ohio C. C. 515, 165 Winship V. P., 51 111. 298, 72 Wlnslow V. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411, 432 Winslow V. S., 76 Ala. 42, 326, 342, 343, 807, 809, 811 Winslow V. S., 26 Neb. 308, 198, 203 Winston V. Com., 9 Ky. L. 1004, 204 Wisdom V. P., 11 Colo. 170, 615 Wise V. Chaney, 67 Iowa 73, 441 Wise V. Com. (Va.), 36 S. E. 479, 283 Withers v. S., 117 Ala. 89, 281 Withers v. S., 30 Tex. App. 383, 729 Withrow V. Com., 1 Bush (Ky.) 17, 690 Witt V. S., 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 5, 17 Witter T. Lyon, 34 Wis. 564, 453 Wixson V. P., 5 Park. Cr. (N. T.) 121, 638 Wofford T. S., 29 Tex. App. 536, 115 Wohlford V. P., 148 111 300, 635, 778 Wohlgemuth v. U. S., 6 N. M. 568, 426 Wolf, In re, 27 Fed. 606, 319 Wolf V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S, W. 108, 885 Wolford V. P., 148 III. 300, 750 Wolfrom V. U. S., 101 Fed. 430, 781 Wolf stein t. P., 6 Hun (N. Y.) 121, 104 ■ Wolverton t. Com., 75 Va. 909, 127, 138 Wolverton v. S., 16 Ohio 173, 514 Womble v. S., 107 Ga. 666, 264, 885 Wong v. Astoria, 13 Ore. 538, 306 Wood V. Com., 12 S. & K. (Pa.) 213, 657 Wood V. Neale, 5 Gray (Mass.) 538, 431 Wood T. P., 53 N. Y. 511, 828 Wood V. P„ 59 N. Y. 117, 414, 426 Wood V. P., 1 T. & C. (N. T.) 810, 87 Wood V. Shaw, 48 III. 276, 790 Wood V. S., 18 Fla. 967, 196, 197 Wood y. S., 48 Ga. 192, 545, ^3 Wood T. S., 62 Ga. 406, 505 Wood V. S., 92 Ind. 269, 19 Wood V. S., 46 Neb. 58, 84 Wood V. S., 11 Tex. App. 318, 290, 295 Wood V. S., 12 Tex. App. 174, 74 Wood T. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 476, 334 Wood V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 235, 508 Wood V. Ter., 1 Ore. 223, 383 Woodard v. S., 9 Tex. App. 412, 105 Woodbury v. S., 69 Ala. 242, 167, 169 Woodcock V. McQueen, 11 Ind. 14, 563 Woodford v. P., 62 N. Y. 117, 231, 233, 234, 238, 239, 671 Woodin V. P., 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 464, 90 Woodruff V. S., 61 Ark. 159, 159, 177, 180 Woodruff V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 573 209 Woods V. S., 36 Ark. 36, 366 Woods V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 99 133 Woodsldes v. S., 2 How. (Miss.) 655, 23 Woodson V. S., 19 Fla. 549, 914 Woodward v. S., 54 Ua. 106, 194 Woodward t. S., 103 Ind. 127, 147 Woodward v. S., 5 Tex. App. 296, 308 Woodward v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 555, 230 Woodward v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. W. 135. 679 Woodworth, Ex parte (Ohio), 29 W. L. B. 315, 456 Woodworth v. S., 26 Ohio St. 196, 404 Woodworth v. S., 20 Tex. App. 375, 330 Woolf V. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121, 650 Woolley, In re, 74 Ky. 109, 439 Woolsey v. S., 30 Tex. App. 346, 231 Wooten, Ex parte, 62 Miss. 174, 648 Work v. Corrlngton, 34 Ohio St. 64, 922 Workman v. S., 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 425, 783 Worland v. S., 82 Ind. 49, 449 Wortham v. S., 59 Miss. 179, 560 Wragg v. Penn Tp., 94 111. 18, 669 Wray, Ex parte, 30 Miss. 673, 691 Wray v. P., 78 111. 213, 731 TABLE OF CASES. CXI [References are to Pages-."] Wright, In re, 134 U. S. 136, 908 Wright, Ex parte, 65 Cal. 504, 451 Wright V. Com., 85 Ky. 123, 684, 687 Wright v. Com., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 941, 768 Wright V. Com., 82 Va. 183, 207 Wright V. Haddocl£, 7 Dana (Ky.) 254, 881 Wright V. P., Breeae (in.) 102, 158 Wright V. P., 61 III. 384, 150 Wright V. P., 92 111 596, 914 Wright V. P., 101 111. 131, 365, 655 Wright T. P., 112 III. 544, 437, 797 Wright V. P., 33 Mich. 300, 904 Wright V. P., 1 N. Y. Cr. 462, 244 Wright T. S., 108 Ala. 60, 501 Wright V. S., 62 Ark. 145, 546 Wright V. S. (Fla.), 27 So. 863, 745 Wright v. S., 18 Ga. 383, 41 Wright V. S., 30 Ga. 325, 226 Wright v. S., 91 Ga. 80, 207 Wright V. S., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 358, 501 Wright V. S., 88 Md. 436, 477 Wright V. S., 50 Miss. 332, 815 Wright V. S., 21 Neb. 496, 210 Wright v. S., 8 Lea (Tenn.) 567, 291 Wright V. S., 44 Tex. 645, 687, 885 Wright v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 354, 551, 553 Wright V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 723 132 Wright V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 1016, 132, 190 Wright V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 191, 131 Wright V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 48, 598 Wright V. Wright, 74 Wis. 439, 442, 443 Wroe V. S., 20 Ohio St. 460, 25, 34 Wyatt V. P., 17 Colo. 252, 448, 461, 464 Wyiie V. S., 97 Ga. 207, 136 Wynehamer v. P., 13 N. T. 432, 650 Wynn v. S., 81 Ga. 744, 123, 207, 210 Wynne v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 837, 271 Yarborough v. S., 41 Ala. 405, 124 Yarborough v. S., 86 Ga. 396, 199, 213 Yarbrough, Ex parte, 110 D. S. 654, 927 Yarbrough v. S., 105 Ala. 43, 679, 788, 804 Yates, In re, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 317, 453 Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 423, 441, 445 Yates V. P., 38 111. 527, 696, 826, 882, 883 Yates V. P., 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 337, 459, 464 Yates V. S., 37 Tex. 202, 121, 863 Yell, In re, 107 Mich. 228, 276 Yellow Stone Kit v. S., 88 Ala. 196, 575 Yeoman v. S., 21 Neb. 171, 530, 533 Yoe V. P., 49 111. 414, 638 Young V. Cannon, 2 Utah 560, 448 Young T. Com., 6 Bush (Ky.) 312, 831 Young V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 929, 36 Young V. Glendinning, 194 Pa. St. 550, 145 Young V. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50, 519, 522, 523, 525 Young V. P., 134 UJ. 42, 424 Young V. P., 6 III. App. 434, 57 Young V. Rex, 3 T. R. 98, 158, 160 Young V. S., 39 Ala. 357, 888 Young V. S., 95 Ala. 4, 27 Young V. S., 100 Ala. 126, 199 Young V. S., 50 Ark. 501, 214 Young V. S., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 165, 583 Young V. S., 42 Tex. 462, 313 Young V. Ter., 8 Okla. 525, 81 Young Ah Gow, Ex parte, 73 Cal. 438, 739 Yount V. S., 64 Ind. 443, 256 Yundt V. P., 65 111. 374, 500, 696, 742 Zabrlskie v. S., 43 N. J. L. 640, 548, 550 Zaliner v. S., 15 Tex. App. 23, 310 Zanone v. Mound City, 103 111. 552, 371 Zarresseller v. P., 17 111. 102, 655 Zeehandelaar, Ex parte, 71 Cal. 238 440 Zeller'v. S., 46 Ind. 304, 365 Ziezer v. S., 47 Ind. 129, 377 Zlmm V. P., Ill 111. 49, 909 Zimmerman v. S., 4 Ind. App. 583, 351 Zimmerman v. S., 46 Neb. 13, 449 Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 113 N. C. 432 459 Zlnk V. P., 77 N. Y. 114, 108, 158 Zoldoske v. S., 82 Wis. 580, 40, 83, 809 Zook v. S., 47 Ind. 463, 567 Zschoeke v. P., 62 111. 128, 107, 142 HUGHES' CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION ONE CRIMES AND DEFENSES PART ONE OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAPTEK I. HOMICIDE. I. Murder : Definition and Elements, . II. Degrees of Murder, III. Manslaughter, IV. Matters of Defense, . . . V. Indictment, Vl. Evidence: Variance, . . . SuBDiv. 1. Burden of Proof, . 3. Dying Declarations, 3. Statements of Defendant, 4. Threats; Malice; Motive, 5. Opinions; Other Offenses, 6. Variance: Instructions, Article I. Murder: Deeinitio] sr A kea. I, Murder : Definition and Elements, . . . . §§ 1-17 §§ l»-2« §§ 27- 32 §§ 33- €0 §§ 61-81, §§ 82-165 §§ 82- 8T §§ 88-124: §§ 125-129 §§ 130-145 §§ 146-1.64 «§ 155-165 § 1. Definition. — "Murder is when a person of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in heing, and Imder the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or (1) 2 hughes' criminal law. § 2 implied.'"^ "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the people, with malice aforethought, either expressed or im- plied."^ Death must follow within a year and a day as a result of the injury inflicted, to make a case of murder by the common law.^ § 2. Malice, what constitutes. — Malice within the meaning of the law, is not restricted to; anger, revenge, hatred or ill-will, but includes every other intention to kill a human being without just cause or ex- cuse for the act.* § 3. Sufficient "cooling time." — If there be a sufficient cooling time for passion to subside and reason to interpose, and the person so pro- voked afterwards kills the other, this is deliberate revenge and not heat of blood, and is murder.^ It has never been held that hatred or ill-will toward the deceased need exist for any considerable length of time in order to constitute malice aforethought.* When a great wrong or in- jury has been done to or inflicted upon a man, which has excited his passion, all authorities agree that time must be given for the passion of the injured person to become calm, before he can be convicted of murder.'' § 4. "Cooling time" for court. — It is well settled that the question of cooling time is a question of law to be decided by the court, and not a question for the jury. But if such question is left to the jury, and they decide it as the court should, it will be but harmless error.* 'Bl. Com. 195; 1 Hale P. C. 425; Wieners, 66 Mo. 13; Stoball v. S., 3 Greenl. Ev., § 130. 116 Ala. 454, 23 So. 162. ' Jackson v. P., 18 111. 270. » 4 Bl. Com. 191. See Gaines v. "Bl. Com. 197; 1 East P. C. 343; 1 S. (Tex. Cr. 1899), 53 S. W. 623. Hawk. P. C. 31, § 9; P. v. Gill, 6 Cal. "Kota v. P., 136 111. 657, 27 N. E. 637; S. v. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475; Com. 53; Peri v. P., 65 111. 23; McDaniel v. V. Roby, 29 Mass. 496; S. v. May- Com., 77 Va. 281, 4 Am. C. R. 371; field, 66 Mo. 125; 2 Bish Cr. L., Perry v. S., 102 Ga. 365, 30 S. E. 903; § 640; S. v. Huff, 11 Nev. 17; 3 Allen v. U. S., 164 U. S. 492, 17 S. Greenl. Ev., § 143. Ct. 154; Travers v. U. S., 6 App. 0. 'Davis V. S., 51 Neb. 301, 70 N. W. C. 450; S. v. Straub, 16 Wash. Ill, 984; S. V. Weeden, 133 Mo. 70, 34 S. 47 Pac. 227; Jones v. Com., 75 Pa. W. 473; McVey v. S., 57 Neb. 471, 77 St. 403, 1 Am. C. R. 263. N. W. 1111; McCoy v. P., 175 111. 229, 'Ferguson v. S., 49 Ind. 33, 1 Am. 51 N. E. 777; S. v. Goodenow, 65 Me. C. R. 584; P. v. Johnson, 1 Park. C. 30; Bias v. U. S. (Ind. Ter. 1899), 53 R. (N. Y.) 291; Com. v. Webster, 5 S. W. 471; Taylor v. S., 105 Ga. 746, Cush. (Mass.) 295; 3 Greenl. Ev., 31 S. E. 764; Harrell v. S., 39 Tex. § 125; 1 Hale P. C. 453. Cr. 204, 45 S. W. 581; Logan v. S., »S. v. Moore, 69 N. C. 267, 1 Green 40 Tex. Cr. 85, 53 S. W. 694; C. R. 613; S. v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207, Com. V. Goodwin, 122 Mass. 19; S. v. 219; S. v. Jones, 20 Mo. 58, 64; Payne v. Com., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 370. § 5 HOMICIDE. 3 §5. Time of deliberation. — One who takes the life of another by- shooting or stabbing him with the deliberate intention of killing him without just cause or provocation, is guilty of murder in the first de- gree, although the intention to kill was not formed until the precise time of the killing.' § 6. Killing while robbing. — If a homicide be committed in the perpetration of a robbery or other felony, it will, under the statute, be murder in the first degree.^" If one of two persons, while engaged in committing a robbery together, kills a man, they are both guilty of murder in the first degree, and it makes no difference which one of them did the killing.^^ § 7. Injuring nnbom child. — If an unborn child be injured by a person willfully beating its mother, and dies from the injury after its birth, such person so beating the mother is guilty of murder.^^ § 8. Killing third person. — The law is that had the defendant shot at one person with intent to murder him, but killed another, the kill- ing of the latter would be murder under the common law.^^ A man will be held guilty of murder or manslaughter who, in the attempt to kill one person, by mistake kills a third person, although there is no intent or design to kill such third person." § 9. Shooting recklessly. — If a person intentionally and recklessly shoot into a dwelling-house and kill a person therein, such killing is murder in the first degree.^^ »S. V. Faino, 1 Marv. (Del.) 492, 41 Atl. 408. See McMahon v. P 189 Atl. 134; Miller v. S., 106 Wis. 156, 111. 222. 81 N. W. 1020; Marzen v. P., 173 111. "Clarke v. S., 117 Ala. 1 23 So 43, 50 N. B. 249; S. v. Kindred, 148 671. . o oo. Mo. 270, 49 S. W. 845; Kilgore v. '^Dunaway v. P., 110 111. 336- S., 1^4 Ala. 24, 27 So. 4; Perugi v. Vandermark v. P., 47 111 122- Walk- S 104 Wis. 230, 80 N. W. 593; S. v. er v. S., 8 Ind. 290; Callahan v S Morgan (Utah), 61 Pac. 527. 21 Ohio St. 306; 3 Greenl. Ev S 145' " S. V. Poster, 136 Mo. 653, 38 S. » Butler v. P., 125 111 644" 18 n' W. 721; S. V. Schmidt, 136 Mo. 644, E. 338; Clarke v. S. 78 Ala 474 38 S. W. 719; Henry v. S., 51 Neb. 6 Am. C. R. 529, 8 Cr. L Mas 19 ' If^^ ^t^ J- ^2*; Morgan v. S., 51 S. v. Vines, 34 lL 1079, 4Am 6 R Neb 672, 71 N. W. 788; Dabney v. 299; S. v. Oilman, 69 Me 163 3 S., 113 Ala. 38 21 So. 211. See Am. C. R. 17; Brown y I^^^i47 Ind Com. V. Chance, 174 Mass. 245, 54 N. 28, 46 N. E. 34; S. v McGohlsrle 1 4 E 551; S. V. Cross, 72 Conn. 722, 46 Wash. 594, 45 Pac. lo;Sv Ivans Atl. 148. 1 Marv. (Del) 477 41 Ati iqr ' "Roesel v. S.. 62 N. J. L. 216, 41 -Russell v. S., 38 Tefcr 590 44 S. W. 159. ■ ■ ' 4 hughes' criminal law. § 1# § 10. Slight provocation. — ^The killing of a person may be murder in the first degree though done in a sudden passion, if upon slight provocation: as, if the deceased was merely kicking at the defendant to make him go away, and the defendant killed him.^* § 11. Unlawful act done deliberately. — When an act, unlawful in itself, is done with deliberation, and with intention of mischief or great bodily harm, or of mischief indiscriminately, fall where it may, and death ensue, against or beside the original intention of the party, it will be murder.^' If a man be doing anything unlawful, and a con- sequence ensues which he did not foresee or intend, as the death of a man or the like, his want of foresight shall be no excuse; for, being guilty of one offense, he is criminally guilty of whatever consequences may follow.** § 12. Killing innocent person. — Though a man be violently as- saulted and has no other possible means of escaping death but by killing an innocent person, this fear and force shall not acquit him of murder : for he ought rather to die himself than escape by the murder 0f an innocent.** § 13. Killing a trespasser. — The killing of a person intentionally with a deadly weapon, who is committing only a mere trespass upon property, is generally murder, and not manslaughter.^" § 14, Killing person for food. — Two men and a boy were cast away in a storm on the high seas, and were compelled to put to sea in an open boat. The boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than a thousand miles from land, with no prospect of being rescued, and they were starving. In order to escape death from hunger, the two men killed the boy for the purpose of eating his flesh, believing, " Com. V. Bckerd, 174 Pa. St. 137, *> Crawford v. S., 90 Ga. 701, 17 34 Atl. 305. S. E. 628, 9 Am. C. R. 591; Carroll "Mayes v. P., 106 111. 313; S. v. v. S., 23 Ala. 28, 58 Am. D. 282. See Edwards, 71 Mo. 312; Russell v. S., also S. v. Cantleny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 38 Tex. Cr. 590, 44 S. W. 159; Wash- N. W. 458, 6 Am. C. R. 421; S. v. ington V. S., 60 Ala. 10; 1 McClaln Warren, 1 Marv. (Del.) 487, 41 Atl. Cr. L., i 325; 3 Greenl. Bv., | 147. 190; Fertig v. S., 100 Wis. 301, 75 N. "4 Bl. Com. 27. W. 960; Noles v. S., 26 Ala. 31; 1 "4 Bl. Com. 30; Arp v. S., 97 Ala. Hale P. C. 457. Contra, S. v. Tay- 5, 12 So. 301, 9 Am. C. R. 521. Com- lor, 143 Mo. 150, 44 S. W. 785. pare Lankster v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 65. i§ 15 HOMICIDB. ^ in good faith, that it afforded the pnly chance of preserving their lives : ' Held to be murder.'* § 15. Wound neglected — Death resulting. — ^If one inflicts upon an- other a dangerous wound, calculated to endanger and destroy life, and death ensues therefrom within a year and a day, it is suflBcifint proof ^f the offense of manslaughter or murder, as the ease may be; and he is none the less responsible, although it may appear that the deceased »ight have recovered, if he had taken proper care of himself, or that unskillful or improper treatment aggravated the wound and contrib- uted to his death.** The rule deducible from the authorities seems to be that, where the wound is apparently mortal, and a surgical opera- tion is performed in a proper manner, under circumstances which render it necessary, in the opinion of competent surgeons, and such (Eiperation is itself the immediate cause of death, the person who in- flicted the wound will be responsible ; but if death results from grossly «Troneous surgical or medical treatment, the person causing the orig- inal wound will not be responsible.** If the wound is not dangerous in itself, and death results from improper treatment or from disease subsequently contracted, not superinduced by or resulting from the wound, then the accused is not guilty.** § 16. Swearing falsely. — ^Bearing false witness against another with the express intention to take away his life, so that the innocent person be condemned and executed, is murder.*" § 17. Consequence in forcing a person to do act. — "Forcing a man to do an act which causes his death renders the death the guilty deed Hjf him who compelled the deceased to do the act."** "Queen v. Dudley, L. R. 14 Q. R. 263 (gangrene); Com. v. Hackett, B. D. 273, 5 Am. C. R. 559; 4 Bl. 2 Allen (Mass.) 136; McAlister v. Com. 30; 1 Hale P. C. 57; 1 Mc- S., 17 Ala. 439; 1 Hale P. C. 428 Clain Cr. L., § 137. =^CofCman v. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) '"S. T. Bantley, 44 Conn. 540; S. 495, 1 Am. C. R. 296; Parsons v S V. Landgraf, 95 Mo. 97, 8 S. "W. 237; 21 Ala. 300; 1 McClaln Cr. L § 292' Bush V. Com., 78 Ky. 271; P. v. " Bush v. Com., 78 Ky. 271 • 'l Hale Cook, 39 Mich. 236; Daughdrlll v. S., P. C. 428; Parsons v. S. 21 Ala 302- 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378; Com. V. Eisen- 3 Greenl. Ev. §139 ' ' lower, 181 Pa. St. 470, 37 Atl. 521; =^'1 Bl. Com. 196; Kerr Homicide S. V. Edgerton, 100 Iowa 63, 69 N. § 42. W. 280; Clark v. Com., 90 Va. 360, =»3 Greenl. Ev., § 142- Adams v 18 S. B. 440; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 139. P., 109 111. 449, 4 Am. C R 351-' See Kee v. S.. 28 Ark. 155, 2 Am. C. 1 McClain Cr. L., § 284. 6 hughes' criminal law. § 18 Aeticle II. Degrees op Murder. § 18. Degrees of murder. — Thie distinction between the degrees of •murder can not be better shown and illustrated than by reference to the statutes of some of the states, and for that purpose the following are given: § 19. Massachusetts statute — ^Murder. — "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit a crime punishable with death or imprison- ment for life, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, is mur- der in the first degree. Murder not appearing to be in the first de- gree is murder in the second degree. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury. Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer the punishment of death. Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life. Nothing herein shall be construed to require any modification of the existing forms of indictment."^"^ § 20. Indiana statutes — First degree. — "Whoever purposely and with premeditated malice, or in the perpetration of, or attempt to per- petrate any rape, arson, robbery or burglary, or by administering poi- son or causing the same to be done, kills any human being, is guilty of murder in the first degree, and upon conviction thereof shall suf- fer death or imprisonment in the state prison during life, in the dis- cretion of the jury."^' "Whoever fights a duel with another in this state and in so doing inflicts a wound upon his antagonist or any other person, whereof the person thus injured shall die, is guilty of murder in the first degree, and, upon conviction thereof, shall suffer death or imprisonment in the state prison during life, in the discre- tion of the jury."^'* "Whoever, by previous appointment, made within, fights a duel without, this state, and in so doing infiicts a mor- tal wound upon any person, whereof the person thus injured shall die within this state, is guilty of murder in the first degree, and, upon conviction thereof, shall suffer death or be imprisoned in the state prison during life, in the discretion of the jury."2^b "Whoever pur- posely and maliciously, but without premeditation, kills any human '"a Mass. Pub. Stat. 1882, eh. 202, shaw v. S., 147 Ind. 334, 47 N. B. §§ 1-6. 157. "Burns' R. S., § 1977; Robinson "a Burns' R. S., § 1978. V. S., 138 Irid. 499, 38 N. E. 45; Hin- "b Bums' R. S., § 1979. § 21 HOMICIDE. 7 being, is guilty of murder in the second degree, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life."*' § 21. Iowa statutes — ^Murder. — "Whoever kills any human being with malice aforethought, either express or implied, is guilty of mur- der."*' "All murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, or lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate and premedi- tated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, mayhem or burglary, is murder in the first degree." "Whoever commits murder otherwise than as set forth in the preceding section, is guilty of murder in the second degree."^'* § 22. Missouri statute — Murder. — "Every murder which shall be committed by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing, and every homi- cide which shall be committed in the perpetration, or attempt to per- petrate any arson, rape, robbery, burglary, or- mayhem, shall be deemed murder in the first degree."^" "All other kinds of murder at common law not herein declared to be manslaughter or justifiable or excusable homicide, shall be deemed murder in the second degree."*^ §23. Deliberation, in first degree. — ^Although the evidence may prove an intentional homicide without any reasonable provocation, it is but murder in the second degree, unless it further appears that the ^killing was done with deliberation.*^ § 24. Intentional killing-r-Second degree. — ^To constitute muruer in the second degree, it must appear that the homicide was commit- ted intentionally.*' "Burns' R. S., § 1980; lillard V. "Mo. Rev. Stat. 1899, ch. 15, S., 151 Ind. 322, 50 N. E. 383. § 1816; S. v. Revely, 145 Mo. 660, 47 "•S. v. Healey, 105 Iowa 162, 74 N. S. W. 787; S. v. Taylor, 143 Mo. 150, W. 916; S. v. Van Tassell, 103 Iowa 44 S. W. 785. 6, 72 N. W. 497. ^ S. v. Silk, 145 Mo. 240, 44 S. W: ""alowa Code 1897, tit. 24, ch. 2, 764, 46 S: W. 959; S. v. Faino, 1 §§ 4727-4729. Marv. (Del.) 492, 41 Atl. 134; TituS "Mo. Rev. Stat. 1899, § 1815; v. S., 117 Ala. 16, 23 So. 77; S. v. S. V. Cochran, 147 Mo. 504, 49 S. Hill, 69 Mo. 451. W. 558; S. V. Sexton, 147 Mo. 89. 48 »= S. v. Young, 55 Kan. 349, 40 Pac. S. W. 452; S. v. Albright, 144 Mo. 659; S. v. O'Hara, 92 Mo. 59 4 S 638, 46 S. W. 620; S. v. Hyland, 144 W. 422; S. v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552. Mo. 302, 46 S. W. 195. 8 hughes' criminal law. §25 § iSSk Sdiberation essential in first degree. — To constitute murder in the first degree, it is necessary that circumstances of willfulness and deliberation shall be proven. But if circumstances of malice and preuaeditation are not proved, the law presumes the killing to b& mur- der in the second degree.** §,26. Premeditated malice not presumed. — When a homicide has been proven, that fact alone authorizes the presumption of malice, and, unexplained,, would warrant a verdict for murder in the second degree. But express and premeditated malice can never be presumed?; it is. evidenced bjc former grudges, previous threats, lying in wait, or other evidence.** Article III. Manslaughter. § 27. Definition. — "Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of an- other without maKce,. express or implied, which may be either vohin- tarjf, upon a sudden heat, or involuntary, but in the commission of some unlawful act.""* To constitute manslaughter, the act causing death must be of such character as to show a wanton or reckless" disre- gard of the rights and saiety of others." § 28. Assault and battery causing death. — If a person participate in a homicide, intending only to commit an assault and battery, he is guilty of maaslaughter only.** § 29. Pointing a loaded g^un without examination. — If a person points a gun without examining whether it is loaded or not, and it happens to be leaded and goes off, and death results, he is guilty of negligence and majislaughter.'* »S. V. Cain, 20 W. Va. 709; S. v. -"S. v. Dorsey, 118 Ind. 167, 20 Wnderwoodi 57 Mo. 40, 1 Am. C; R. N. E. 777, 8 Am. C R 520 259; Jones v. Com., 75 Pa. St. 403, »»P. v. Munn, 65 Cal. 211, S Pac. 1 Am. e. R. 262. 650, 6 Am. C. R. 433; Brown v. S., " Hamby V. S., 36 Tex. 523, 1 Green 28 Ga. 200; Com. v. McAfee, 108 C. R. 652; Herman v. S., 75 Miss. Mass. 461; Reg. v. Caton, 12 Cox 340, 22 So. 873; Dowdy v. S.. 96 Ga. C. C. 624; Wellar v. P., 30 Mich. 16; 653, 23 S. E. 827; Smith v. S., 33 Me. 55; Irvine v. S., "4 BI. Com. Ml; Martin v. S., 11'9 104 Tenn. 132, 56 S. W. 845; 3 Ala. 1, 25 So. 255; Maher v. P., 10 Greenl. E.V., § 122. Mich. 212: See 3 Greenl; Ev., § 120; »Reg. v. Jones, 12 Cox C. C, 628; 2 Thompson Trials, § 2183; S. v. 2 Green C. R. 34. See Reddick v. Matthews, 148 Moi 185, 4i9 S. W. S. (Tex. Cr.);, 47 S. W. 993; Mey- ^•'85. ers V. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 428. See f 30 HOMICIDE. 9 § 30. Willful omission of duty — Death resulting. — ^Death en&uing m consequence of the willful omission of a duty will be murder; ■death ensuing in consequence of the negligent omission of a duty will ^e manslaughter. If death is the direct consequence of the malicious •omission to perform a duty, as of a mother to nourish her infant child, this' is a case of murder. If the omission was not malicious, and arose from negligence only, it is a case of manslaughter.** §31. Gross negligence resulting in death. — The defendant pub- Kely practiced as a physician, and, being called to attend a sick Kioman, with her eonsent caused her to be kept in flannels saturated with kerosene for three days or more, by reason of which she died. From the evidence it appeared that the kerosene was applied by the (jtelendant as the result of foolhardy presumption or gross negligence ; l^&t is sufiicient to sustain a conviction of manslaughter.*^ §32. Accessories to manslaughter. — In cases of manslaughter tther than infortunium or se-defendendo, there seems to be no reason why there may not be accessories.*^ Where prisoners are charged in the indictment as accessories after the fact to murder, they may be found guilty on such indietiaent of having been accessory to man- j^ughter, the offense of manslaughter being included in that of jaurder.*' AsTicLE IV. Matters op Defense. 1 33. Hurder — ^Not manslaughter. — It is no defense to an indict- ment for manslaughter that the homicide therein alleged appears by the evidence to have been committed with malice aforethought, and was, therefore, murder.** Hbbertson v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 239, 4 C. & P. 423. See Rex T. Spiller. 5 3 Am. e. R. 208. See also S. v. Jus- C. & P. 333. tas, 11 Or. 178, 8 Pac. 337, 6 Am. C. « S. v. Hermann, 117 Mo. 629, 23 R. 511; Com. v. Pierce, 138 Mass. S. W. 1071, 9 Am. C. R. 317; Hagan 165, 5 Am. C. R. 400; Com. v. Mat- v. S., 10 Ohio St. 459; Goff v. Prime. «hews, 89 Ky. 291, 12 S. W. 333; 8 26 Ind. 196; Stipp v. S., 11 Ind 62- Am. & Eng. Bncyc. L. (2d ed.) 285; S. v. Coleman, 5 Port. (Ala.) 32; 1 LF:Pr,°^- ^^2' ^^^5 1 Hale P. C. Hale P. C. 437; Queen v. Richards, ^E't*^'- c „„ ^ h.R.2 Q. B. D. 311, 3 Am. C. R. "Lewis V. S., 72 Ga. 164, 5 Am. 452. See 4 Bl. Com. 191. e. R. 382; Com. v. Macloon, 101 " Queen v. Richards, L. R 2Q B Mass. 1; Reg. v. Conde, 10 Cox C. C. D. 311, 3 Am. C. R. 452 547; S. V. Smith 65 Me. 257; U. S. V. "Garvey's Case, 7 Colo. 384, 3 Jfeagher, 37 Fed. 875. Pac. 903, 4 Am. C. R. 261; Barnettv. K l^"'?.- I fif'^h^^l, ^*^^- ^^5' ^- S* "1- 325; Rhodes v. Com., 48 & Am. C. R. 398, 404; Rex v. Long, Pa. St. 396; Adams v. S., 29 Ohio St. 10 hughes' criminal law. § 34 § 34. Provocation great. — "If a man takes another in the act of adultery with his wife, and kills him directly on the spot, it is but manslaughter. It is, however, the lowest degree of it, and, therefore; in such case, the court directed the burning in the hand to be gently inflicted, because there could not be a greater provocation."*^ § 35. Officer killing not justified. — It is considered better to allo\r one guilty of a misdemeanor to escape altogether than to take his life. So an officer having in custody a prisoner who had been con- victed of assault and battery and ordered committed in default of payment of the fine assessed^ will be guilty of murder or manslaugh*- ter if he kill such prisoner to prevent his escape.** § 36. Officer killing. — Where a police officer uses more force than is reasonably necessary in arresting a person who is resisting the ar- rest, or if the officer after being thrown into the heat of passion by such person striking him, intentionally shoots his prisoner without malice, causing death, such killing is manslaughter in the fourth degree, as defined by statute.*'' § 37. Principal convicted of manslaughter. — ^Two persons were indicted on a charge of homicide, one as principal for murder and the other as accessory before the fact. The principal was tried alone and convicted of manslaughter. The other, on his trial, pleaded in bar that he could not be an accessory before the fact to manslaughter. This plea was held bad, for the reason that the state was not pre- cluded from showing that the principal was in fact guilty of murder, though convicted only of manslaughter.** § 38. Provocation by words only. — Provocation by words only, however opprobrious, will not so mitigate intentional killing as to re- duce the homicide to manslaughter.*" Passion aroused by mere words, 415; Lane v. Com., 59 Pa. St. 371; «Reneau v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 720, Com. V. McPike, 3 Gush. (Mass.) 2 Am. C. R. 624; S. v. Dietz, 59 Kan. 181; 2 Thompson Trials, § 2184. 576, 53 Pac. 870; 2 Bish. Cr. L., § 648. «4 Bl. Com. 191; Price v. S., 18 " S. v. Rose, 142 Mo. 418, 44 S. W. Tex. App. 474, 5 Am. C. R. 387; 329. Jones V. P., 23 Colo. 276, 47 Pac. " S. v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. 275; Shufflin v. P., 62 N. Y. 229; 3 E. 937. See "Principal and AcceS- Greenl. Ev., § 122; Morrison v. S., sory." 39 Tex. Cr. 519, 47 S. W. 369. Con- " Steffy v. P., 130 111 101 22 N. E. tra, Cyrus v. S., 102 Ga. 616, 29 S. 861; Jackson v. P., 18 111. 269; Cros- E. 917. by v. P., 137 111. 325, 27 N. B. 49; § 39 HOMICIDE. 11 however insulting, can not reduce homicide below the offense of mur- der in the second degree.^" No slight provocation or previous indig- nity is suflSeient to reduce a deliberate killing from murder to man- slaughter; as, where a wife proves unfaithful to her husband and he deliberately kills her for her unfaithfulness^ he is guilty of murder.'*^ § 39. Overt act essential. — Mere threats to kill, unaccompanied by any act to carry them into execution, will not warrant the defendant in making any attack, and will afford no excuse for homicide. The danger must appear to be imminent.^" § 40. Threats of third person. — The accused offered to prove that another and different person than himself had made threats to kill the deceased, just before the commission of the crime with which he was charged, and that immediately after the offense such other person left the country, and had not since been heard from: Held incom- petent.^* § 41. Dangerous character of deceased. — The defense proposed to show that the deceased was a desperate and dangerous man. This the court refused, and would only permit his reputation for peace and quiet to be submitted to the jury. This ruling of the court was error, it appearing that the defendant was not the aggressor.^* "When the defendant is the assailant, or commences the affray, he will not be entitled to show in defense the vicious or wicked disposition of the Teague v. S., 120 Ala. 309, 25 So. B. 777. But see S. v. Trusty 1 Pen 209; S. V. Faino, 1 Marv. (Del.) 492, (Del.) 319, 40 Atl. 766 41 Atl. 134; S. v. Warren, 1 Marv. " S. v. Burns, 148 Mo 167 49 S (Del.) 487, 41 Atl. 190; S. v. Mc- W. 1005; Sanchez v. P 22 N Y 147-' Neill, 92 N. C. 812; P. v. Biggins, 65 S. v. Cochran, 147 Mo. '504 49 S W Cal. 564, 4 Pac. 570; S. v. Martin, 558; S. v. Avery, 64 N^C 608- S v" 1^4 Mo. 514, 28 S. W. 12; McCoy Walker, 50 La. 420, 23 So "967"' Gre?l v. P., 175 111. 231, 51 N. B. 777; ory v. S. (Tex. Cr.) 48 S W Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 418, 55 N. B. 577; Channell v. S., 109 Ga. 150 34 519- S. E. 353. fiir^?"]" ""■ n" ^"^^i^-.^- ^^ ^°- "Wilson V. P., 94 111. 301, 324; S. 843, 9 Am. C. R. 322; Ex parte v. Keene, 50 Mo. 357; Myers v S Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 11 So. 14; U. S. 33 Tex. 535; Evans v. S 44 Miss V. Carr, 1 Woods 480; U. S. v. Wit- 762; 2 Thompson Trials' T 2161 ■ berger, 3 Wash. C. C. 515; Evans v. Barnards v. S^ 88 Tenn 183 12%' S., 44 Miss. 762; Taylor v.- S., 48 W. 431. ' ^• ■^i^„J^''• ^- ■^^ McCoUum, 119 Mo. "'Crookham v. S. 5 W Va "Jin 469,24 S.W.1021; Price v. P., 131 111. 2 Green C R 673 ' 223, 23 N. E. 639, 3 Greenl. Ev., « S. v. Bryant 55 Mo 7f: •> Pr<.»„ § 124; McCoy v. P., 175 111. 231, 51 n! C. R 612 ^^' ^ ^'^^'^ 12 hughes' criminal law. i42 person whom he has slain." But he may show such disposition in self- defense. "^ Evidence of the dangerous character of the deceased is competent only under a plea of self-defense, and must be confined to the general reputation of the deceased, and can not be shown by specific acts.''* The defendant offered evidence that the general char- acter of the deceased was that of a violent, turbulent, revengeful, bloodthirsty, dangerous man, and reckless of human life. This was competent evidence, and the court erred in excluding it."*' § 42. Deceased going armed. — The defendant set up self-defense^ and offered to prove that the deceased had carried pistols : Held in- competent: the fact that at some time he had a pistol would be im- material ; and even if the deceased had been in the habit of going armed, it would be immaterial, if the defendant had no knowledge of that habit."' In a ease where the evidence tended to show that the deceased upon no other provocation than mere words placed his hand behind him and then advanced toward the defendant, it was competent to show under the plea of self-defense that the deceased was in the habit of carrying a pistol, and that this fact was known to the defendant, and it could make no difference whether the deceased had a pistol on this occasion or not."* § 43. Deceased a conspirator. — It is competent to show that the de- ceased and others formed a conspiracy to whip the defendant and others, the defendant having learned the fact of such conspiracy.'" § 44. Evidence in mitigation as to degree. — ^The defendant, at his trial on a charge of murder, offered and sought to introduce evidence that, on the day before the homicide was committed, the deceased, armed with a knife, was searching for the defendant, with the avowed intention of killing him ; that the deceased called at the house of the defendant, declaring that he would kill the defendant on sight : Held error to reject this evidence : it was competent in mitigation of pun- ishment where the penalty is required to be fixed by the jury, for a "Cannon v. P., 141 111. 281, 30 N. C. R. 637; S. v. Bryant, 56 Mo. 75,2 E. 1027. Green C. R. 612; Smith v. S., 75 " S. V. Faino, 1 Marv. (Del.) 492, Miss. 542, 23 So. 260. 41 Atl. 134; S. v. Fontenot, 50 La. ™McDonnall v. P., 168 111. 95, 48 637, 23 So. 634; Powell v. S., 101 N. E. 86. Ga. 9, 29 S. B. 309; Travers v. U. S., ""Daniel v. S., 103 Ga. 202, 29 S. 6 App. D. C. 450. B. 767. " Fields V. S., 47 Ala. 603, 1 Green » Williams v. P., 54 111. 425. § 45 HOMICIDB. 13 term of years or life imprisonment, or the death penalty for the crime of murder — even though such evidence was not sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaughter.** § 45. Relative strength competent. — The defense was that the de- fendant used a pistol to repel an assault which was not only violent in fact, hut was made by a powerful man of dangerous temper, who had made threats against him. The defendant offered witnesses for examination who were personally familiar with both parties and ca- pable of forming opinions of the relative strength, temper and other personal qualities not capable of any description except by opinion: Held error to reject this offered evidence.'^ And in such case the de- fendant may show the relative strength of the deceased and himself by reputation, and not by specific acts."' 1 46; Defendant must fly.— Every citizen may traverse the streets or stand in all places where he has a right to be, and when not at fault is not bound to fly when assailed by anybody; in some of the states, however, in cases of homicide, the ancient doctrine is adhered to that one must fly if he can rather than kill his assailant.** 1 47. Banger imminent, justifies killing. — Whenever a man is. in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm, or it is being inflicted upon him by another, whether it endangers his life or not, he has the right to defend himself to prevent such great bodily harm, even though he kills his assailant in defending himself."" §48. Danger apparent — Reasonable. — Before a person is war- ranted in taking the life of his assailant in self-defense, the danger, or apparent danger, must be such as would justify an ordinarily pru- dent man, under like circumstances, in taking the life of an assail- "Nowaeryk V. P., 139 111. 336, 342, Jones, 89 Iowa 182, 56 N. W 427- 28 N. E. 961; Fletcher v. P., 117 111. Holmes v. S., 100 Ala. 80 14 So 184, 7 N. B. 80; 1 McClain Cr. L., 864; Stoball v. S., 116 Ala. 454, 23 * ?,^^. So. 162. Contra, see "Defenses." "Brownell v. P., 38 Mich. 735; See Page v. S., 141 Ind. 236, 40 N. E. King V. S., 90 Ala. 612, 8 So. 856; 745. S. V. Graham, 61 Iowa 608, 16 N. W. "Mlnton v. Com., 79 Ky 461- '*£'«^- ■^- Brown, 63 Mo. 439. Fields v. State, 134 Ind. 46, 32 N. "S. V. Cushmg, 17 Wash. 544, 50 E. 780; Pond v. P., 8 Mich. 150; Mc- «n • „ .„ „ Clain Cr. L., § 302. See P. v. Rob- «Com. v. Drum, 58 Pa. St. 9; erston, 67 Gal. 646, 8 Pac. 600, 6 Am. Brown v. Com., 86 Va. 466, 10 S. E. C. R. 521 745; S. v. Crane, 95 N. C. 619; S. v. 14 hughes' criminal law. § 49 ant to save his own life, or prevent great bodily harm.'" It is highly important that the jury should be apprised of all the circumstances, real or apparent, surrounding the defendant at the time of the homi- cide, in determining the necessity of resorting to force in defense of his life or person."^ § 49. Defending against several. — Where a defendant killed one of several persons who were pursuing or assaulting him armed with weapons, he will not be restricted, on a plea of self-defense, to the one he actually killed; for he may show that he had the right to kill any of them in self-defense."* § 50. Defending judge. — An officer selected to protect a judge of the United States Supreme Court may, when such justice is threatened with danger, take the life of an assailant, if the circumstances are such as to warrant the belief that such killing is necessary to save the life of such justice, and he acts in good faith."" § 51. Establishing defense — "Satisfactorily." — A statute provid- ing that "the killing being proved, the burden of proving circum,- stances of mitigation or that justify or excuse the homicide, will de- volve upon the accused to show justification," does not require him to "satisfactorily" establish his defense.'" § 52. Killing not probable consequence of act. — There can be no conviction of homicide on evidence that the accused knocked the de- ceased down with his fist during a discussion concerning the posses- sion of a horse, and the horse jumped on him or kicked and thus killed him, the killing not being the probable consequence of his act.'^ If two men concert together to fight two other men with their fists, and one strikes an unlucky blow causing death, both would be guilty of "S. v. Warren, 1 Marv. (Del.) 487, «» In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 10 S. 41 Atl. 190. Ct. 658. "' Cannon v. P., 141 111. 280, 30 N. " Appleton v. P., 171 111. 477, 49 E. 1027; Oliver v. S., 17 Ala. 587; N. B. 708; Smith v. P., 142 111. 122, Monroe v. S., 5 Ga. 85; Pritchett v. 31 N. B. 599; Alexander v. P., 96 S., 22 Ala. 39; S. v. Smith, 12 Rich. 111. 101; Halloway v. P., 181 111.548, (S. C.) 430; Morrison v. S. (Pla.), 54 N. B. 1030; Ingram v. S., 62 Miss. 28 So. 97; Bondurant v. S. (Ala.), 142, 5 Am. C. R. 485. See Kent v. 27 So. 775; Whar. Cr. Ev., § 69. See P., 8 Colo. 563, 9 Pac. 852, 5 Am. C. "Defenses" generally. R. 409; Ortwein v. Com., 76 Pa. St. " S. v. Adler, 146 Mo. 18, 47 S. W. 414, 1 Am. C. R. 299. 794. "P. v. Rockwell, 39 Mich. 503, 3 Am. C. R. 224. § 53 HOMICIDE. 15 manslaughter. But if one used a knife, or other deadly weapon, with- out the knowledge or consent of the other, he only who struck the blow with the weapon would be responsible for the death resulting from the blow given by it.'^^ § 53. Accidental death. — If a man intending to kill a thief or "housebreaker in his own house, by mistake kills one of his own family, this is no criminal act.'* A person who was unjustifiably assaulted by another, pushed his assailant away from him, using no more force than was reasonably necessary. The assailant, on being thus pushed away, fell on a lighted lamp, from which her clothing caught fire, burning her so severely that she died: Held to be accidental death.''* § 54. Negligence without intent. — Mere negligence with no intent to do harm is not necessarily criminal: as, where a person carelessly uses a dangerous weapon in ignorance or with a laudable purpose, under the belief that no harm is possible, the criminal intent being v^anting.'^ § 55. Third person striking. — A person who was in no manner con^ neeted with the act of inflicting a mortal wound, gave the deceased a blow after the wound had been given by another. If the blow did not contribute to causing the death of the deceased, he was not guilty of the homicide, although he may have intended to assist the person who inflicted the mortal wound.'* § 56. Eioter not liable for accidental killing. — A rioter can not be' held guilty of murder or manslaughter by reason of the accidental killing of an innocent person, by those who are engaged in suppressing the riot.'" § 57. Evidence of suicide. — The accused called witnesses to prove that the deceased, six years prior to her death, was of a melancholy disposition, and was predisposed to and threatened to commit suicide ; "Reg. V. Caton, 12 Cox C. C. 624, Cr. L. § 351. Contra, S. v. Hardie, 2 Green C. R. 29. 47 Iowa 647, 2 Am. C. R. 327. " 4 Bl. Com. 27, 181. "Rhodes v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 332, '-S. V. Trusty, 1 Pen. (Del.) 319, 45 S. W. 1009. 40 Atl. 766. " Butler v. P., 125 111. 646, 18 N. B. "Robertson v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 338; Com. v. Camptell, 7 Allen 541; 239, 3 Am. C. R. 208. See 1 MoClain 1 Bish. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 637. See 4 Bl. Com. 181-2. 16 hughes' criminal law. § 58 but this testimony was rejected as being too remote. This was error; the lapse of time should go merely to the weight — and not to the com- petency — of the testimony.'"' § 58. Insanity — ^Mental condition. — The testimony as to the con- dition of the mind of the accused at times previous and subsequent to the killing, is admissible solely upon the ground that it tends t* show the mental condition at the time of the homicide.'* § 59. Abortion statute. — A statute providing that "every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, anf medicine, drug or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any in- strument or other means with intent thereby to destroy such child and shall thereby destroy it, shall be guilty of manslaughter," has no application t6 the woman taking the substance or using the instrument herself with intent to destroy her child.'" § 60. Child must be bom. — The child might have breathed beforfe it was born, but its having bireathed is not sufficient life to make ths killing of the child murder. There must have been an independent circulation or the child can not be considered as alive for this pur- pose.*^ Article V. Indictment. § 61. Premeditated malice. — Under a statute defining murder ia the first degree to be the "willful, deliberate and premeditated kill- ing" of a human being, an indictment by proper averments charging that the defendant "of his deliberate, premeditated malice afore- thought" killed and murdered the deceased, sufficiently states the homicide was deliberate and premeditated.*^ Though the indict- ment fails to allege that the killing was done "feloniously and with premeditated malice," yet if, with proper averments, it charges the assaults or acts causing the death to have been done feloniously and with premeditated malice, it is sufficient.*' "Blackburn v. S., 23 Ohio St. 165; " S. v. Wlnthrop, 43 Iowa 519, 2 Com. V. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 185, 31 Am. C. R. 277; Sheppard v. S., 17 N. E. 961. Contra. Siebert v. P., 143 Tex. App. 74; Rex v. Enoch, 5 C. & 111. 584, 32 N. E. 431; S. v. Marsh, 70 P. 539. Vt. 288, 40 Atl. 836. «> S. v. Mfetcalf, 17 Mont. 417, 43 ™ S. V. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. Pac. 182; S. v. Noel, 61 Kan. 857, 58 241, 8 Am. C. R. 585. See "De- Pac. 990. *®S!?^" X, " ^rake V. S., 145 Ind. 210, 41 N. •° S. v. Prude, 76 Miss. 543, 24 So. 871. § 62 HOMICIDE. 17 § 62. "Malice aforethought" essential. — In indictments where it is necessary to use the word "feloniously" to designate the offense as a felony, the omission of the words "with malice aforethought" will not be supplied by the employment of the word "feloniously."** An indictment charging murder by proper averments, stating that the defendant "willfully, feloniously and with malice aforethought, did strike and beat" the deceased, giving him a mortal wound, "and did then and there cast and throw him into the sea and drown him," suf- ficiently charges that he willfully, feloniously and with malice afore- thought threw him into the sea, without repeating those words. *^ § 63. Manslaughter included. — In an indictment for a homicide, charging murder, but defective as to that grade of crime, the words "murder" and "with malice aforethought" may be rejected as sur- plusage and the prisoner put upon his trial for manslaughter.** An indictment for murder in the first degree includes manslaughter and all the lower degrees of murder.**^ § 64. Indictment for murder. — An indictment charging in the lan- guage of the statute that the defendant at a time and place men- tioned, "willfully, feloniously and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder" the deceased, sufficiently charges murder.*^ § 65. Weapon in which hand. — The indictment need not allege in which hand nor how the defendant held or used the weapon with which he killed the deceased.** §66. "Deliberately" in first degree. — The word "deliberately" is essential in the statutory description of murder in the iirst degree, and it or its equivalent must be alleged in the indictment, although the words "willfully" and "premeditately'' are used.*^ E. 799. Contra, Holt v.-Ter., 4 Okla. Blackf. (Ind.) 20; Reed v. S., 8 Ind. 76, 43 Pac. 1083. 200; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 119. "S. V. Pairlamb, 121 Mo. 137, 25 «a Morrison v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. S. W. 895; S. v. Wimberly, 3 Mc- 97. Cord 190; Kaelin v. Com., 84 Ky. " Flynn v. S., 97 Wis. 44, 72 N. -W. 354, 1 S. "W. 594; Witt v. S., 6 Coldw. 373; S. v. Robertson, 50 La. 455, 23 5; S. V. Watson, 41 La. 598, 8 Am. C. So. 510; S. v. Cronin, 20 Wash. 512, R. 543, 7 So. 125. 56 Pac. 26; P. v. McArron, 121 Mich. » St. Clair v. U. S., 154 U. S. 134, 1, 79 N. W. 944. 14 S. Ct. 1002; S. v. Dooley, 89 Iowa «*Com. v. Robertson, 162 Mass. 90, 584, 57 N. W. 414. 38 N. E. 25. " Garvey's Case, 7 Colo. 384, 3 Pac. ™ Cannon v. S., 60 Ark. 564, 31 903, 4 Am. C. R. 260; Dias v. S., 7 S. W. 150, 32 S. W. 128. See S. v.. HUGHES' C. li.— 2 18 hughes' criminal law. § 67 § 67. Indictment sufficient — ^First degree. — Where an indictment, after stating the time and place with proper averments, charged that the defendant "did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice unlawfully kill and murder" a person named, "by then and there feloniously, purposely and with premedi- tated malice, shooting at and against the said" person, sufficiently charges murder in the first degree under the statute.^" § 68. Indictment sufficient — First degree. — Under a statute which provides that "all murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, is murder in the first degree," an indictment charging that the de- . iendant "did willfully, feloniously, premeditately, deliberately, un- lawfully and of his malice aforethought, kill" the deceased, sufiiciently charges the commission of the crime.®^ The indictment follows the form prescribed by the legislature for indictments for murder in charging the act to have been done with "malice aforethought," and such charge is tantamount to an averment that the act was "willful, deliberate and premeditated."'^ § 69. Indictment sufficient. — The indictment alleged that the de- fendant "did unlawfully, willfully, feloniously and with his malice aforethought, and after deliberation and premeditation, kill and mur- der one J — by shooting him, the said J — , with a certain gun, which he, the said (defendant, naming him), then and there had and held in his hands, the said gun, being then and there loaded with gun- powder and leaden bullets, against the peace," etc. : Held su£Bcient.°' § 70. Homicide on seas. — In charging murder as having been com- mitted on the high seas, the indictment is not required to state the locality where committed. Alleging that the crime was committed in an American vessel upon the high seas within the Jurisdiction of the court and of the United States and not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, is sufficient.®* Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642, 32 S. W. »= Nevada v. Hing, 16 Nev. 307, 4 1124. Am. C. R. 376. ■» Lane v. S., 151 Ind. 511, 51 N. E. »» La Rue v. S., 64 Ark. 144, 41 S. 1056. See also S. v. Kindred, 148 W. 53. See Borrego v. Ter., 8 N. M. Mo. 270, 49 S. "W. 845; S. v. Burns, 446, 46 Pac. 349. See Rosenberger 148 Mo. 167, 49 S. W. 1005; S. v. v. S., 154 Ind. 425, 56 N. E. 914 Cochran, 147 Mo. 504, 49 S. W. 558. (poisoning) ; S. v. Bradford, 156 Mo. See Turner v. S., 61 Ark. 359, 33 S. 91, 56 S. W. 898; Green v. S., 1B4 IV. 104. Ind. 655, 57 N. E. 657. " S. V. Van Tassel, 103 Iowa 6, 72 " Andersen v. U. S., 170 U. S. 481, N. W. 497; Hamlin v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 18 S. Ct. 689. .579, 47 S. W. 656. ■§ 71 HOMICIDE. 19 § 71. "Human being'" immaterial. — Murder is defined to be "the ■anlawful killing of a human being in the peace of the people, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied." The indictment is not bad in failing to allege that the deceased was a human being, or in Ihe peace of the people or state.®^ § 72. Averment of assault. — The indictment is not fatal in omit- ling to charge the defendants, in formal and express terms, with the ■commission of an assault and battery on the body of the deceased.'* § 73. "Leaden balls" immaterial. — ^An indictment charging mur- der in the usual form by shooting with a pistol, but failing to allege "that with the leaden balls so shot out of said pistol," the mortal wound was inflicted, was held sufficient."^ ,§ 74. Description of wound. — The want of a minute specification and character of the wounds, charged in the indictment to have been inflicted, is technical, and, if available at all, should be urged on a motion to quash."* It is not necessary to describe the wound in the indictment, nor is it necessary to state on what part of the body the wound was inflicted."® § 75. Time, place and cause of death. — The indictment alleging by proper averments that the defendant inflicted upon the body of the deceased a "mortal wound, of which mortal wound" the deceased ^'did languish, and, languishing, did then and there instantly die," sufficiently states the time and place of giving the wound and cause of death.ioo § 76. Negligence of druggist. — An indictment charging negligence of a druggist in filling a prescription for a child, is fatally defective ""Palmer v. P., 138 111. 362, 28 N. "^ Stone v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 326; E. 130; Kirkham v. P., 170 111. 11, West v. S., 48 Ind. 483; Com. v. 48 N. E. 465; S. v. Stanley, 33 Iowa Chapman, 65 Mass. 422; Com. v. 526; Merrick v. S., 63 Ind. 327; Du- Robertson, 162 Mass. 90, 38 N. B. 25- mas V. S., 63 Ga. 600; Com. v. Mur- 1 McClain Cr. L., § 380. phy, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 472; 1 Mc- »" S. v. Bronstlne, 147 Mo. 520, 49 Claln Cr. L., § 374. S. W. 512; Com. v. Robertson, 162 "•Dennis v. S., 103 Ind. 142, 2 N. Mass. 90, 38 N. B. 25; Walker v. S. E. 349, 5 Am. C. R. 472; Cordell v. 34 Fla. 167, 16 So. 80; Robertson v S., 22 Ind. 1; Wood v. S., 92 Ind. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 424, 427. 269. ^"OBall V. U. S., 163 U. S. 662, 16 " S. V. Silk, 145 Mo. 240, 44 S. W. S. Ct. 1192. See Smith v. S. (Fla ) T64, 46 S. W. 959; McVey v. S., 57 27 So. 868. Neb. 471, 77 N. W. 1111; Stutsman v. Ter., 7 Okla. 490, 54 Pac. 707. 20 hughes' criminal laav. § 77 in failing to allege that the defendant delivered the powders to any one to be administered to the child and in failing to state how th& mother of the child procured the powders.^ § 77. Killing third person. — The indictment must allege that the malicious assault was made on the person slain, although the defend- ant did not intend to kill him, but intended to kill a different person.- § 78. Duplicity — Several instruments. — The indictment in alleg- ing that the accused struck the deceased on the head with a piece of iron, and also then and there struck him with a sledge, and also with a shovel, is not bad for duplicity.' § 79. Three using one weapon. — The indictment in alleging that three defendants killed and murdered the deceased by striking and stabbing him upon the belly with a knife, is proper pleading, the same as if one person be charged with thus using the knife.* § 80. Aiding, abetting — Sufficient. — An indictment alleging that several defendants murdered the deceased by one of them shooting him while the others were then and there aiding and abetting, but which one of the defendants actually "did the shooting and killing, or which aided and abetted, is to the grand jury unknown," is suflBcient.* An indictment charging two persons jointly with the crime of mur- der in one count, and one of them in another count as accessory after the fact to the murder charged to have been committed by the other, is sufficient and not objectionable for repugnancy or misjoinder." § 81. Weapon used. — An indictment, though sufficient in other re- spects in charging murder by shooting, will be defective if it fails to name the weapon used in the homicide, or allege that it was to the grand jurors unknown.'^ ' S. V. Smith, 66 Mo. 97. See Com. 1026; Com. v. Chapman, 11 Cush. V. Hartwell, 128 Mass. 415. (Mass.) .422; Coates v. P., 72 III. 303. ' S. V. Clark, 147 Mo. 20, 47 S. W. » Tudor v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1039, 43 886; S. v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 S. W. 187. Pac. 1080. » S. V. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. "Jackson v. S., 39 Ohio St. 38; S. B. 937. V. McDonald, 67 Mo. 13; 1 Bish. Cr. 'Jackson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 38, 28 Proc, § 432. S. W. 815; Harris v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. ♦Com. V. Roberts, 108 Mass. 300; 441, 36 S. W. 88. Evans v. S., 58 Ark. 47, 22 S. W. § 82 HOMICIDE. 21 Article VI. Evidence; Variance. Subdivision 1. — Burden of Proof. § 82. Killing being proved — Burden. — As a general rule it may be stated that all homicide is malicious and, of course, amounts to mur- der, unless when justified, excused or alleviated. All these circum- stances of justification, excuse or alleviation must be shown by the prisoner.' When the people have proved the killing, and no evidence has been given tending to prove justification, they have made out a prima facie case of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.® Murder in the first degree will not be presumed from the mere fact that the defendant killed the deceased, though unaccom- panied by any circumstances of justification, excuse or mitigation; but murder in the second degree will be presumed from the fact of killing.!" § 83. Statute on killing being proved. — The statute which provides ihat "the killing being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse the homicide, will devolve upon the accused, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution sufficiently manifests that the crime committed only amounts to man- slaughter, or that the accused was justified or excused in committing "the homicide," should be construed in connection with the other sec- tions of the statute which define the constituent elements of crime generally, and the elements of murder specially. Proof of the mere abstract fact that the accused killed the deceased will not sustain a verdict.!! 'O'Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. St. 430; Brown, 41 Minn. 319, 43 N. W. 69; S. V. Tommy, 19 Wash. 270, 53 Pac. O'Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. St. 424; 157; S. v. Mason, 54 S. C. 240, 32 S. Bavis v. S., 25 Ohio St. 369; Clem- E. 357; S. v. Byrd, 121 N. C. 684, 28 ents v. S., 50 Ala. 117; S. v. Hicks, S. E. 353; 1 McGlain Cr. L., § 333; 4 125 N. C. 636, 34 S. E. 247; Kastner ' Bl. Com. 201; Davis v. S., 51 Neb. v. S., 58 Neb. 767, 79 N. W. 713. 301, 70 N.W. 984; Linehan v. S., 113 " S. v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, " Ala. 70, 21 So. 497; P. v. Marshall, 32 Atl. 137; S. v. Payne, 10 Wash. 112 Cal. 422, 44 Pac. 718; Ter. v. 545, 39 Pac. 157; S. v. Evans, 124 liucero, 8 N. M. 543, 46 Pac. 18; 3 Mo. 397, 28 S. W. 8; Robertson v. Greenl. Bv. 144. Com. (Va.), 20 S. B. 362. "P. V. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 11 "Kent v. P., 8 Colo. 563 5 Am Pac. 481, 8 Am. C. R. 53; S. v. Patter- C. R. 409, 416, 9 Pac. 852; Maher v. son, 45 Vt. 308, 1 Green C. R. 492; P., 10 Mich. 217. See S. v. Patter- -Upstone V. P., 109 111. 175; S. v. son, 45 Vt. 308, 1 Green C. R. 492. 22 hughes' criminal law/ § 84 § 84. Burden — Killing proved. — The court erred in giving the fol- lowing instruction: "When the homicide is proved by the state to- be the act of the defendant, the law presumes malice ; and unless the evidence offered to prove the homicide should relieve the defendant pr mitigate the crime, he should be found guilty of murder as charged." If there is any evidence, whether introduced by the state or the defendant, rebutting or tending to rebut the presumption of malice, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of it.^'' § 85. Burden, self-defense. — Where the defendant pleads self-de- fense, the burden is on him to prove that plea by a preponderance of the evidence.^' § 86. Insanity — ^Burden of proof. — ^In regard to the burden of proof in cases where insanity is set up as a defense, there are three separate, distinct and well-defined theories : (1) The defendant must prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) The presumption of sanity prevails until it is overcome by preponderance of evidence showing the defendant's insanity to the satisfaction of the Jury. (3) If any evidence is introduced tending to prove that the defendant is- insane, the state is bound to prove and establish his sanity, like all other elements of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.^* § 87. Burden, as to wound. — If a person receives a wound willfully inflicted by another which might cause death, and death actually fol- lows, the burden is on him who inflicted it to show that it did not cause the death. ^^ Subdivision 2. — Dying Declarations. § 88. Dying declarations — Defined. — Dying declarations, as is well settled, are neither more nor less than statements of material facts, concerning the cause and circumstances of homicide, made by the vic- tim under the solemn belief of impending death, the efEeet of which on the mind is regarded as equivalent to the sanction of an oath. They are substitutes for sworn testimony.^® Dying declarations are « Perry v. S., 102 Ga. 365, 30 S. B. 241, 8 Am. C. R. 592. See "De- 903. fenses — Insanity." " S. V. Ballou, 20 R. I. 607, 40 Atl. « Edwards v. S., 39 Fla. 753, 23 So. 861; Lewis v. S., 120 Ala. 339, 25 So. 537. See S. v. Strong, 153 Mo. 548, 43. See "Defenses" for self-defense 55 S. W. 78. generally. >»p. v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431, 1 "S. V. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 Pac. Am. C. R. 304; Hurd v. P., 25 Mich. 405; P. v. Knapp, 26 Micli. 112. §89 HOMICIDE. 23; such as are made relating to the facts of an injury of which the party afterward dies, linder the fixed belief and moral conviction that im- mediate death is inevitable — and without hope of reeovery.^^ § 89. Dying declarations — Not hearsay. — Dying declarations ar& exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay evidence because of the solemnity of the circumstances under which they are made, upon the belief of impending death and when every hope of recovery is gone.'^*' § 90. Dying statements competent for defendant. — Dying declara- tions are competent on behalf of the defendant, as well as the prose- cution, when admissible under the rule making such declarations competent.^" § 91. Dying statement constitutional. — Evidence of dying declara- tions when admissible under the rule, does not violate the constitu- tional provision "that the accused shall be confronted by the witnesses, against him."^" " "Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 89, 18 N. E. 304; Simons v. P., 150 111. 73,36 N. E. 1019; North v. P.,139 111. 103,28 N. B. 966; Digby v. P., 113 111. 123; S. V. Furney, 41 Kan. 115, 21 Pac. 213, 8 Am. C. R. 133; S. v. Baldwin, 79 Iowa 714, 45 N. W. 297; S. v. John- son, 26 S. C. 152, 7 Am. C. R. 366; S. V. Schmidt, 73 Iowa 469, 35 N. W. 590; Norris v. P., 101 111. 408; Pace V. Com., 89 Ky. 204, 12 S. W. 271; S. V. Medllcott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Green C. R. 233; P. v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 435; Murphy v. P., 37 111. 447; Bates V. Com., 14 Ky. L. 177, 19 S. W. 928; Barnett v. P., 54 111; 325; McLean v. S. (Miss.), 12 So. 905; Tracy v. P., 97 111. 101; S. V. Daniel, 31 La. 91, 95; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 156; Under- hill Or. Bv., § 103, citing Com. V. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 42 N. B. 560; Collins v. S., 46 Neb. 37, 64 N. W. 432; Com. v. Mika, 171 Pa. St. 273, 33 Atl. 65; Com. v. Brewer, 164 Mass. 577, 42 N. B. 92; Cole v. S., 105 Ala. 76, 16 So. 762; S. v. Faile, 41 S. C. 551, 43 S. C. 52, 19 S. B. 690, 20 S. B. 798; White v. S., Ill Ala. 92, 21 So. 330; Whitaker v. S., 79 Ga. 87, 91, 3 S. E. 403; Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. ^92; Archibald v. S., 122 Ind. 122, 23 N. B. 758; P. v. Kraft, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 474, 36 N. Y. Supp. 1034; S. v. Wilson, 121 Mo. 434, 442, 26 S. W. 357; Vaughan v. Com., 86 Ky. 431, 435, 6 S. W. 153. '» Digby V. P., 113 IlL 125, 55 Am.. R. 402; S. V. Schmidt, 73 Iowa 469,. 35 N. W. 590; P. v. Beverly, 108 Mich. 509, 66 N. W. 379; Com. v. Casey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 421, 59 Am. D. 150; Kennedy v. S., 85 Ala. 327, 5 So. 300; S. v. Saunders, 14 Or. 300, 12 Pac. 441; S. v. Reed, 137 Mo. 125, 38 S. W. 574; Graves v.. P., 18 Colo. 170, 32 Pac. 63; Starr v. Com., 97 Ky. 193, 30 S. W. 397; S.. v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 57 N. W. 652, 1065; Pace v. Com., 89 Ky. 204, 11 Ky. L. 407, 12 S. W. 271. "Shell V. S., 88 Ala. 14, 7 So. 40; P. V. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112; Brock V. Com., 92 Ky. 183, 17 S. W. 337; P. V. Hall, 94 Cal. 595, 30 Pac. 7; P. V. McLaughlin, 44 Cal. 435; Browa V. Com., 73 Pa. St. 327, 13 Am. R. 740; Moore v. S., 12 Ala. 764; S. v. Saunders, 14 Or. 300, 12 Pac. 441; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 1207; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 110. ^» Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. St 321, 13 Am. R. 740, 2 Green C. R. 517; Com. v. Carey, 12 Cush. 246; Wood- sides V. S., 2 How. (Miss.) 655; Anthony v. S., Meigs (Tenn.) 277; S. V. Nash, 7 Iowa 347. See also 24- hughes' criminal law. § 92 § 92. Death from abortion. — Where death results from criminal abortion, the person performing the abortion may be prosecuted for murder. In such case, dying declarations are competent.^^ § 93. Written and oral statements. — If the dying declarations were repeated at different times and one should be reduced to writing covering different grounds and referring to different matters from those contained in the verbal statements, then both may be admitted in evidence.^^ If the dying statements are reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, the writing is the best evidence of the state- ment made at that time, and must be produced or its absence ac- counted for; but the fact that the declaration has been reduced to writing will not preclude evidence of unwritten declarations made on other occasions.^* If the only evidence of what the deceased stated was reduced to writing and signed by him at the time it was made, then the writing, if existing, should be produced; and neither a copy nor parol evidence of such declarations can be admitted to supply the omission; and if the writing and the oral statements were the same, then the absence of the writing should be accounted for before evidence of the oral statements can be produced.^* § 94. Not signed or read — ^Memorandum. — Where the statement of the declarant has been reduced to writing, but neither signed nor read over to him, it becomes a mere memorandum, and is not compe- Barnett v. P., 54 111. 330; S. v. Wal- L. Mag 523; GlUett Indirect & Col. dron, 16 R. I. 191, 14 Atl. 847; Lam- Ev., § 192. beth v. S., 23 Miss. 323; Campbell v. ^ S. v. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 359; P. v. S., 11 Ga. 374; Burrell v. S., 18 Tex. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474, 12 N. W. 662; 713; Com. v. Richards, 18 Pick. S. v. Walton, 92 Iowa 455, 61 N. W. I (Mass.) 437, 29 Am. D. 608; S. v. 179. Vansant, 80 Mo. 76 ; Green v. S., 66 '" Dunn v. P., 172 111. 587, 50 N. B. Ala. 40, 41 Am. R. 744; S. v. Oliver, 137; Boulden v. S., 102 Ala. 78, 15 2 Houst. (Del.) 585; S. v. Saunders, So. 341; S. v. Walton, 92 Iowa 455, 14 Or. 300, 12 Pac. 441; Miller v. S., 61 N. W. 179; P. v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 25 Wis. 384; S. v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 474, 12 N. W. 662; Epperson v. S., 6 15, 45 Pac. 650; S. v. Kindle, 47 Lea (Tenn.) 291; S. v. Carrington, Ohio St. 358, 24 N. B. 485; Walston 15 Utah 480, 50 Pac. 526; Collier v. v. Com., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 15; Hill S., 20 Ark. 36; Whar. Cr. Bv. (8th v. Com., 2 Gratt. (Va.) 607; Under- ed.), § 295; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., § 1213. hill Cr. Ev., § 111. =* S. v. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 359; Beets '''S. v. Baldwin, 79 Iowa 715, 45 v. S., Meigs (Tenn.) 106; Rex v. N. W. 297; Simons v. P., 150 111. 66, Gay, 7 C. & P. 230; Collier v. S., 20 36 N. E. 1019; Peoples v. Com., 87 Ark. 36; Merrill v. S., 58 Miss. 65. Ky. 488, 9 S. W. 509, 810; S. v. Dick- See S. v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 12 Inson, 41 Wis. 299; Montgomery v. Am. R. 200; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 112. S., 80 Ind. 338, 41 Am. R. 815, 3 Cr. 95 HOMICIDE. 25 tent evidence: it serves only to refresh the memory of the person who wrote it.^° § 95. Form, words or signs. — ^A dying declaration may be made orally as well as in writing or by signs or words ; and it may be made under oath or not under oath, and any form is sufficient if otherwise competent.^' § 96. Substance of dying statement. — ^Where the witnesses are un- able to repeat the exact words of the deceased in making his dying statement, the substance of what he said may be given in evidence.''^ § 97. Dying declarations restricted. — All the text-books and a host of judicial decisions assert that the rule admitting dying declarations in evidence is confined to the cases of homicide.^^ Dying declarations must be restricted to the act of killing and the circumstances imme- diately attending the act, and forming part of the res gestae.'^ But ='= Anderson v. S., 79 Ala. 5; Alli- son v. Com., 99 Pa. St. 17; Binns v. S., 46 Ind. 311; S. v. Somnier, 33 La. 237; S. v. "Wilson, 24 Kan. 189, 36 Am. R. 237; Com. v. Haney, 127 Mass. 455. "Mockabee v. Com., 78 Ky. 382; S. V. Somnier, 33 La. 239; Under- bill Cr. Bv., § 113; Daughdrill v. S., 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378; Com. v. Casey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 417, 59 Am. D. 150; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., % 201. "P. v. Chase, 79 Hun (N. Y.) 296, 29 N. Y. Supp. 376; Ward v. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 101; Montgomery T. S., 11 Ohio 424; Brown v. S., 32 Miss. 442; S. v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 15, 45 Pac. 650; Krehs v. S., 8 Tex. App. 1; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 110, citing Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 13 S. Ct. 50; P. V. Chin Mook Sow, 51 Cal 597 ^ Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. St. 327; Reg. V. Hind, 8 Cox. C. C. 300; P. v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95; S. v. Harper, 35 Ohio St. 78; Reynolds v. S., 69 Ala. 502, 4 Am. C. R. 152; S. v. Dickin- son, 41 Wis. 299; Railing v. Com., 110 Pa. St. 100, 6 Am. C. R. 12, 1 Atl. 314; S. V. Furney, 41 Kan. 115, 13 Am. St. 262, 21 Pac. 213; S. v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 Pac. 970; Thayer v. Lombard, 165 Mass. 174, 42 N. E. 563 ; Com. v. Thompson, 159 Mass. 56, 33 N. B. 1111; Simons v. P., 150 111. 66, 36 N. B. 1019; Mora V. P., 19 Colo. 255, 35 Pac. 179; Starr V. Com., 97 Ky. 193, 30 S. W. 397; S. V. Jefferson, 77 Mo. 136; Poteete V. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 270, 40 Am. R. 90; Gillett Indirect & Col. Bv., § 192. =''' Starr v. Com., 97 Ky. 193, 30 S. W. 397; S. v. Shelton, 47 N. C. 364, 64 Am. D. 587; Leiber v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 11, 1 Am. C. R. 310; Mose V. S., 35 Ala. 421; Nelson v. S., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 542; S. v. Johnson, 26 S. C. 152, 1 S. B. 510, 7 Am. C. R. 366; Payne v. S., 61 Miss. 161, 4 Am. C. R. 155; Wroe v. S., 2« Ohio St. 460; S. v. Bohan, 15 Kan. 407, 2 Am. C. R. 280; 1 Greenl. Bv., § 156; Dixon v. S., 13 Pla. 636, 1 . Green C. R. 688; 1 McClain Cr. L., §§ 425, 426, 427; Collins v. Com., 12 Bush (Ky.) 271, 2 Am. C. R. 282; Sullivan v. S., 102 Ala. 135, 15 So. 264, 48 Am. St. 22; Johnson V. S., 94 Ala. 35, 10 So. 667; Black- burn V. S., 98 Ala. 65, 13 So. 274; Scott V. P., 63 111. 508; Bx parte Fatheree, 34 Tex. Cr. 594, 31 S. W. 403; S. V. Garrand, 5 Or. 216; S. v. Reed, 137 Mo. 125, 38 S. W. 574; 26 hughes' CKIMINALf LAW, § 9$ under the rule thus restricting dying declarations, may be shown evidence as to the person who committed the assault on the deceased.^* § 98. Belief of immediate death in extremity. — Dying declaration* are made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone — when every motive to false- hood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful con- siderations to speak the truth.^^ The sincere and settled belief of impending dissolution, the absence of all hope, however slight, can alone give to the declaration that sanction which is attributed to the- testimony of the living by the solemn oath judicially administered. It is not necessary that the declarant shall aver that he believes death to be certain and impending.'^ If at the time the deceased made the dying statement he did so under the fixed belief of immediate death and without any hope of recovery, such statement is admissible as a dying declaration, although he may afterward entertain hope of re- covery.^' § 99. Immediate death not essential. — It is not necessary that the declarant should be on the point of immediate death to make his S. v. Evans, 124 Mo. 397, 28 S. Donnelly v. S., 26 N. J. L. 463 r W. 8; Savage v. S., 18 Fla. 909; Com. v. Matthews, 89 Ky. 287, 12 S. S. v. Perigo, 80 Iowa 37, 45 N. W. W. 333; Ward v. S., 78 Ala. 441; 399; S. v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, 57 1 Greenl. Ev. 158; Tip v. S., 14 Lea N. W. 652, 1065; Puryear v. Com., (Tenn.) 502. 83 Va. 51, 1 S. E. 512; Denton v. S., "»S. v. Reed, 53 Kan. 773, 37 Pac. 1 Swan (Tenn.) 279; Bryant v. S., 174; S. v. Shaffer, 23 Or. 560, 32 80 Ga. 272, 4 S. E. 853; S. v. Black, Pac. 545; S. v. Mills, 91 N. 0. 595; 42 La. 861, 8 So. 594; P. v. Davis, Swisher v. Com., 26 Gratt. (Va.) 56 N. Y. 103. 963, 21 Am. R. 330. See Hall v. ™Com. V. Roddy, 184 Pa. St. 274, Com., 89 Va. 171, 15 S. B. 517; Ex 39 Atl. 211; S. v. Kessler, 15 Utah parte Meyers, 33 Tex. Cr. 204, 26 S. 142, 49 Pac. 293; Mattox v. U.. S., W. 196; Johnson v. S., 102 Ala. 1, 146 U. S. 140, 13 S. Ct. 50. 16 So. 99; Polk v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. "Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 89, 18 495, 34 S. W. 633; P. v. Crews, 103 N. B. 304; Digby v. P., 113 111. 125; Cal. 174, 36 Pac. 367; Reg. v. S. V. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. Steele, 12 Cox C. C. 168. See also 458, 6 Am. C. R. 427; North v. P., 139 Brande v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 45 S. 111. 82, 28 N. B. 966; Bdmondson v. W. 17; Taylor v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 552, S., 41 Tex. 496; Brown v. Com., 73 43 S. W. 1019; Com. v. Brewer, 164 Pa. St. 321, 2 Green C. R. 516; S. v. Mass. 577, 42 N. B. 92; S. v. Evans, Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Green C. R. 124 Mo. 397, 28 S. W. 8; S. v. Walton, 227; Evans v. S., 58 Ark. 47, 22 S. 92 Iowa 455, 61 N. W. 179; S. v. W. 1026; 1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), Trivas, 32 La. 1086, 36 Am. R. 293; § 156. Joslin V. S., 75 Miss. 838, 23 So. 515; "Bell V. S., 72 Miss. 507, 17 So. Doolin v. Com., 16 Ky. L. 189, 27 232, 10 Am. C. R. 280; P. v. Simp- S. W. 1; Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. son, 48 Mich. 474, 12 N. W. 662; 151, 13 S. Ct. 50. § 100 HOMICIDE. 27 dying statement competent evidence, if otherwise competent.** The fact that the declarant may live several days or even weeks after mak- ing a dying statement, will not render it ineompetent.^° § 100. Slightest hope of recovery. — Where the declarant had the ^lightest hope of recovery, his declarations are not admissible, al- though he may have died within an hour afterward.*" § 101. Dying statement competent. — "My husband said, when he came in, 'Don't take on; the shot will kill me. I'll not get well.' * * * The morning after the next day, being the day he died, he said to me he could not get well ; he said that all along, from the first to the last talk we had about it; he could scarcely speak above a whisper. He told me when and how he wanted to be buried the same evening after he was shot. He never expressed any hope of recovery, but said all the time he could not get well. Don't think he asked for a physician at all. On Saturday morning, thg day he died, he told me how the trouble occurred." Deceased said: "Mother, I never can get well; I am killed." Held competent.*'' § 102. Dying statement too uncertain. — If it turn out that the dying declarations are too indefinite or irrelevant, the same may be excluded on motion, and the jury instructed to disregard the same.*"* =*S. V. Nocton, 121 Mo. 538, 26 S. S. B. 403; Com. v. Roberts, 108 Mass. W. 551; S. V. Daniel, 31 La. 92; 296; Peak v. S., 50 N. J. L. 179, 12 Young v. S., 95 Ala. 4, 10 So. 913; Atl. 701; Underhill Cr. Bv., §103, Hall V. Com., 89 Va. 171, 15 S. E. citing Jackson v. Com., 19 Gratt. 517; S. V. Schmidt, 73 Iowa 469, 35 (Va.) 656; S. v. Medlicott, 9 Kan. N. W. 590; Lipscomb v. S., 75 Miss. 257, 282, 285; P. v. Hodgdon, 55 559,23 So. 210,230; Wagoner v. Ter. Cal. 72, 76; Bell v. S., 72 Miss. 507, (Ariz.), 51 Pac. 145; Lowry v. S., 17 So. 232, 10 Am. C. R. 277; Com. 12 Lea (Tenn.) 145; P. v. Simpson, v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 42 N. E. 48 Mich. 474, 12 N: W. 662; Mattox 560; S. v. Simon, 50 Mo. 370; P v. V. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 13 S. Ct. 50. Bvans, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 492; Morgan ■"P. V. Weaver, 108 Mich. 649, 66 v. S., 31 Ind. 199. N. W. 567; Evans v. S., 58 Ark. 47, "Watson v. S., 63 Ind. 548, 3 Am. 22 S. W. 1026; S. v. Reed, 53 Kan. C. R. 227. See Johnson v. S., 47 Ala. 767, 37 Pac. 174; Radford v. S., 33 9, 1 Green C. R. 595; S. v. Furney, 41 Tex. Cr. 520, 27 S. W. 143; S. v. Kan. 115, 21 Pac. 213. See also S. v. Craine, 120 N. C. 601, 27 S. E. 72; P. Russell, 13 Mont. 164, 32 Pac. 854; S. v. Chase, 79 Hun (N. Y.) 296, 29 v. Evans, 124 Mo. 397, 407, 28 S. W. N. Y. Supp. 376; Boulden v. S., 8; Lester v. S., 37 Pla. 382, 20 So. 102 Ala. 78, 15 So. 341; Com. v. 232; P. v. Bemmerly, 87 Cal. 118, 25 Haney, 127 Mass. 455; White v. S., Pac. 266; S. v. Black, 42 La. 861, 864, 111 Ala. 92, 21 So. 330; Moore v. S., 8 So. 594; S. v. Sadler, 51 La. 1397, 96 Tenn. 209, 33 S. W. 1046; Daugh- 26 So. 390; Hagenow v. P., 188 111. drill V. S., 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378; 547, 59 N. E. 242; Green v. S., 154 Underhill Cr. Ev., § 105. Ind. 655, 57 N. E. 637. ==P. V. Hodgdon, 55 Cal. 72, 36 Am. "« Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 298; R. 30; Whi taker v. S., 79 Ga. 87, 3 Scott v. P., 63 111. 511. 28 hughes' criminal law. § 103 § 103. Dying statement — Incompetent matter. — The dying dec- larations contained not only a statement of the killing, but also, as follows: Hacket, the defendant, had often threatened to kill him, the deceased. Held error to admit this.^° If the dying declaration contain incompetent as well as competent statements, the incompe- tent part may, on motion, be stricken out, leaving the competent and relevant part to be submitted to the jury.*" The deceased stated, among other things, that at a former time he had a warrant to arrest the defendant, and had been told that the defendant was seen with a pistol. These statements were incompetent as a dying declaration, not relating to the cause of death.*^ Any statement made by the de- ceased showing the state of feeling existing between him and the defendant, is incompetent as a dying declaration, — ^not relating to the circumstances causing death.*^ § 104. Statement of deceased when two killed. — The defendant shot and killed two persons at the same time and under the same cir- cumstances, one of whom died instantly, and the other survived some time and made a dying statement. The accused was tried for the murder of the one who died instantly, and the court admitted in evi- dence the dying declaration of the other. Held error, as his death was not the subject of the charge *' § 105. Dying statement, incomplete. — If it appears that the dying statement is incomplete and that the deceased intended to qualify his statements or connect them with explanations, but was prevented, such dying statement is incompetent as evidence.** But the fact that =' Hacket v. P., 54 Barb. (N. Y.) rich v. P., 89 111. 90; P. v. Taylor, 370. See Collins v. Com., 12 Bush 59 Cal. 640. (Ky.) 271, 2 Am. C. R. 282. "Reynolds v. S., 68 Ala. 502; Mer- "P. V. Farmer, 77 Cal. 1, 18 Pac. rill v. S., 58 Miss. 65; S. v. Shelton, 800; S. V. Petsch, 43 S. C. 132, 20 2 Jones L. (N. C.) 360, 64 Am. D. S. B. 993, 999; Archibald v. S., 122 587; Leiber v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) Ind. 122, 23 N. E. 758; Mattox v. U. 13; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 109. S., 146 U. S. 140, 13 S. Ct. 50; S. v. " S. v. Bohan, 15 Kan. 407, 2 Am. Terrell, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 321. C. R. 278; Poteete v. S., 9 Baxt. " North V. P., 139 111. 104, 28 N. E. (Tenn.) 270, 40 Am. R. 90; S. v. 966; Simons V. P., 150 111. 66, 36 N.E. Fitzhugh, 2 Or. 233; S. v. West- 1019; Mitchell V. Com., 12 Ky. L. 458, fall, 49 Iowa 328. But see Gillett 14 S. W. 489; Railing v. Com., 110 Indirect & Col. Bv., § 192. Pa. St. 100, 6 Am. C. R. 8, 1 Atl. 314; " S. v. Johnson, 118 Mo. 491, 40 P. v. Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 8, 11 Pac. Am. St. 405, 24 S. W. 229; S. v. Ash- 323; Sullivan v. S., 102 Ala. 135, 15 worth, 50 La. 94, 23 So. 270; Finn v. So. 264, 48 Am. St. 22; S. v. West- Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 701, 1 Greenl. fall, 49 Iowa 328. See also S. v. Bv., § 159; Vass v. Com., 3 Leigh Vansant, 80 Mo. 67; Montgomery v. (Va.) 786, 24 Am. D. 695. See S. v. S., 80 Ind. 338, 41 Am. R. 815; Wey- Patterson, 45 Vt. 308; McLean v. S., § 106 HOMICIDE. 29 dying statements are conflicting or inconsistent does not render them incompetent, but goes only to tlieir credibility.*^ The facts relating to the making of the dying statements in the following cases are re- viewed by the court and the statements held incompetent.** §106. Statement of deceased incompetent. — The declarant said: "He is the cause of my death. Oh, those horrible instruments ! Laws is the cause of my death; he is my murderer. They abused me ter- ribly." Held error to admit this declaration. It makes no definite charge that the defendant used the instruments mentioned.*'' The doctor testified : "I told the deceased she would not recover, and she was perfectly aware of her danger. I told her I understood she had taken something. She said she had, and that damned man had poi- soned her. I asked her what man, and she said Crockett. She said she hoped I would do all I could for her, for the sake of her family. I told her there was no chance of her recovery." This shows a degree of hope, and is hence incompetent.** The deceased said to the witness, a few days before he was killed, that he (deceased) expected that some of those fellows whose wives he had been running after, would kill him some day. Held not error to exclude this testimony.*® § 107. Opinion as to belief of death. — The doctor gave it as his opinion that the deceased believed he was about to die, giving no facts upon which to predicate his conclusion. Such opinion was in- competent.'^'' § 108. Opinions incompetent. — Any statements amounting to ex- pressions of opinion which the deceased would not have been permit- ted to state as a witness on the trial, are not competent as a dying declaration.'^ The deceased, in his dying statement, among other 16 Ala. 672; Com. v. Haney, 127 Medllcott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Green C. Mass. 455. R. 232; Bell v. S., 72 Miss. 507, 17 "Richards v. S., 82 Wis. 172, 51 So. 232, 10 Am. C. R. 277. N. W. 652; Moore v. S., 12 Ala. 764, "Rex v. Crockett, 4 C. & P. 544. 46 Am. D. 276. Se? Mathedy v. Com., 14 Ky. L. 182, "Tracy v. P., 97 111. 103; S. v. 19 S. W. 977. Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Green C. R. "^ Schoolcraft v. P., 117 111. 277, 7 232; Bell v. S., 72 Miss. 507, 17 So. N. E. 649. 232, 10 Am. C. R. 277. ""Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 89, 18 " S. V. Baldwin, 79 Iowa 714, 45 N. E. 304. N. W. 297. See S. v. Center, 35 Vt. " S. v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 378; S. v. Perigo, 80 Iowa 37, 45 N. Pac. 970; Green v. Com., 13 Ky. L. W. 399; P. V. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 897, 18 S. W. 515; McBride v. P., 5 431; Tracy v. P., 97 111. 103; S. v. Colo. App. 91, 37 Pac. 953; S. v. 30 hughes' criminal law. § 109 things, said that the defendant killed him for nothing. This amounts merely to the expression of an opinion, and is, therefore, ineomp^^ tent.^^ § 109. Incompetent as witness. — If the person making the dying statement would have been incompetent as a witness on the trial, it fol- lows that his dying declaration is not competent to be introduced in evidence."* § 110. Declarations by incompetent witness. — ^Dying declarations of a person who has been mortally wounded, with regard to the cir- cumstances which caused death, are to be received with the same degree of credit as the testimony of the deceased would have been had he been examined on oath."* § 111. Statement of deceased — ^Res gestae. — The defendant had just passed from the house of the deceased with a chair in his hand, _ challenging the deceased to come on as Lydia Porter and the witness entered the house. The afEray, of whatever nature, had just trans- pired. Upon the instant of the witness entering, the deceased jumped from his chair where he was sitting before the fire with his hands across his knees, and, among other things, said: "Now we'll see whether I am to be knocked down with a chair in my own house." Held competent as part of the res gestae, a verbal act expressive of the hopes and fears of deceased."" Some time after the shooting, during the same night, the deceased said, in the presence of the ac- cused : "Have I no friends here ?" "Gentlemen, I am dying. I did no wrong." Held competent as part of the res gestae?'^ Mace, 118 N. C. 1244, 24 S. E. 798; N. W. 399. Contra. S. v. Lee, 58 S. Kearney v. S., 101 Ga. 803, 29 S. E. C. 335, 36 S. E. 706; Payne v. S., 61 127; Berry v. S., 63 Ark. 382, 38 S. Miss. 161; Sullivan v. S., 102 Ala. W. 1038; S. V. Perigo, 80 Iowa 37, 135, 15 So. 264, 48 Am. St. 22; S. v. 45 N. W. 399; Mathedy v. Com., 14 Black, 42 La. 861, 8 So. 594. Ky. L. 182, 19 S. W. 977; P. v. Was- "'P. v. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29; Rex son, 65 Cal. 538, 4 Pac. 555. See v. Pike, 3 C. & P. 598 (child); S. v. Shenberger v. S., 154 Ind. 630, 57 Elliott, 45 Iowa 486; S. v. Ah Lee, N. E. 519; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 108. 8 Or. 214. ""Collins V. Com., 12 Bush (Ky.) "Dixon v. S., 13 Fla. 636, 1 Green 271; Com. v. Matthews, 89 Ky. 287, C. R. 688; Oliver v. S., 17 Ala. 587; 12 S. W. 333; S. v. Foot You, 24 Green v. S., 13 Mo. 382; S. v. Fergu- Or. 61, 33 Pac. 537; "Wagoner v. Ter. son, 2 Hill (S. C.) 619. (Ariz.), 51 Pac. 145; Hall v. S., 132 » S. v. Porter, 34 Iowa 131, 1 Green Ind. 317, 322, 31 N. E. 536. See C. R. 246. Powers V. S., 74 Miss. 777, 21 So. "Healy v. P., 163 111. 381, 45 N. 657; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., B. 230. See "Res Gesta" undei- § 199; S. V. Perigo, 80 Iowa 37, 45 "Evidence." I 112 HOMICIDE. 31 § 112. Statements not res gestae. — Statements of the deceased, not part of the res gestae, are not competent for the defense — being only hearsay. But can sneh statements be shown by the defendant if made toder the rule making the same competent against the accused ?^^ Declarations of the deceased, not being dying statements nor part of the res gestae, and made out of the presence of the accused, are not •competent."* But if the declarations of the deceased relate to some fact about which there is no dispute, the admission of them is harm- jigggssa Declarations of the deceased made at different times within a year before his death, and prior to his last illness, that he intended to take his own life, not being part of the fes gestae, are mere hearsay and incompetent. It is not competent to prove that the deceased declared she should perform the operation of abortion on herself with a lead pencil, if it was not otherwise done."® § 113. Statements of deceased — Hearsay. — Statements of the de- •ceased which are not dying declarations, relating what the accused had said or done to her a day or two before, that is, that defendant per- suaded her to take the medicine ; that he, the doctor, was to blame, — ^is mere hearsay and most damaging.'" Declarations of the deceased which are not part of the res gestae are mere hearsay and incompe- tent." For example: Q. "What did the deceased say to you after he (the defendant) had been out ten minutes?" A. "She told me that he warned her if he couldn't come and see her that night, he would kill her." The defendant appeared fifteen minutes after this declaration and killed the deceased. Held mere hearsay and reversible error. "^ § 114. Preliminary evidence on competency. — Preliminary evi- dence on the competency of dying declarations is addressed to the court, and the jury should, for that purpose, be excluded from hear- "Moeck V. P., 100 111. 245; Adams Conn. 153; Kennedy v. P., 39 N. Y V. P., 47 111. 376; P. v. Aiken, 66 253. Mich. 460, 33 N. W. 821, 7 Am. C. R. "P. v. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460 33 556. N. W. 821, 7 Am. C. R. 356. "Weyrich v. P., 89 111. 95; How- °> Montag v. P., 141 111. 82 30 N ard V. P., 185 111. 560, 57 N. E. 441. E. 337; Weyrich v. P., 89 111.' 96" S ■"aGedye v. P., 170 111. 288, 48 N. v. Pomeroy, 25 Kan. 349; Crookham E. 987. V. S., 5 W. Va. 510, 2 Green C. R "Siebert v. P., 143 111. 584, 32 N. 614; Cheek v. S., 35 Ind. 492- 1 E. 431; Com. v. Felch, 132 Mass. 22; Greenl. Ev., § 156. S. V. Wood, 53 N. H. 484; Blackburn °=Montag v. P., 141 111. 82 30 N T. S., 23 Ohio St. 146; S. v. Dart, 29 E. 337. 32 hughes' chimin al law. § 115 ing the same; but if the court admits the dying declarations, the preliminary evidence must then be given to the jury."* § 115. Determining mental condition. — In determining the mental condition of the deceased at the time of making his dying statement, the court will take into consideration not only his language, con- duct and condition, but all other facts and circumstances competent to be considered.®* Where the theory of the defense was that the deceased was not in a rational state of mind, at the time of making the dying statement, by reason of taking chloroform, it was error to refuse to allow the medical witness to answer this question : "Under ordinary circumstances, how much chloroform is necessary to put a person under its influence by inhalation ?"®° § 116. Testing competency of dying statements. — ^Dying declara- tions should not be permitted to go to the jury unless the proof sat- isfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt that they were made in extremity; but if the court admits the declarations in evidence, the jury must determine whether the deceased was in extremis, and whether he believed that death was impending and had lost all hope of recovery at the time of making the statement."' § 117. Testing competency. — The court, in passing upon the com- petency of dying declarations, as to belief of impending death, will take into consideration everything said and done by the deceased as well as by third persons in his presence.'^ «= North V. P., 139 111. 102, 28 N. 17 So. 232, 10 Am. C. R. 277; P. v. E. 966; Starkey v. P., 17 111. 20; S. Abbott (Cal.), 4 Pac. 769; S. v. V. Elliott, 45 Iowa 486, 2 Am. C. R. Young, 104 Iowa 730, 74 N. W. 323; Jones v. S., 71 Ind. 66; Doles 693; P. v. Bemmerly, 87 Cal. 117, 25 V. S., 97 Ind. 555; Varnedoe v. S., 75 Pac. 266; Norfleet v. Com., 17 Ky. L. Ga. 181; Hill v. Com., 2 Gratt. (Va.) 1137, 33 S. W. 938; P. v. Chase, 79 594; Bell v. S., 72 Miss. 507, 17 So. Hun (N. Y.) 296, 29 N. Y. Supp. 376; 232, 10 Am. C. R. 277; Montgomery S. v. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189, 36 Am. R. V. S., 11 Ohio 425; S. v. Furney, 41 257; P. v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 476, 12 Kan. 115, 21 Pac. 213. Contra, as to N. W. 662; Puryear v. Com., 83 Va. excluding the jury: S. v. Shaffer, 23 54, 1 S. E. 512. Or. 555, 32 Pac. 545; P. v. Smith, 104 "Tracy v. P., 97 111. 107. N. Y. 493, 58 Am. R. 537, 10 N. E. "Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 89, 18 873; Johnson v. S., 47 Ala. 10; Price N. E. 304; Starkey v. P., 17 111. 20; V. S., 72 Ga. 441; Doles v. S., 97 Ind. S. v. Arnold, 13 Ired. (N. C.) 184; 555. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 110. "S. V. Murdy, 81 Iowa 611, 47 N. "Digby v. P., 113 111. 125; 1 Bish. W. 867; Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 82, Cr. Pro., § 1212. Any statement 18 N. E. 304; Bell v. S., 72 Miss. 507, made to the deceased by a physician § 118 HOMICIDE. 33 § 118. Dying statement — Weighed by jury. — The jury shall judge the weight and credibility of dying declarations, and not the eourt."* Considering the. nature of dying declarations, the jury, in determining their weight, should act with great caution and deliberation, and the court should be exceedingly careful not to invade the province of the jury by its instructions.'* § 119. Testing competency of dying statement. — The defendant offered to prove to the court, by competent testimony, that at the time of making the declaration offered by the prosecution as the dying: declaration, the deceased did not believe that he was about to die, but expected to recover from the wound, and the defendant asked the court to be permitted at this stage of the proceeding to introduce his evidence touching the matters made in his offer for the purpose of testing the competency of the declarations of the deceased. The court refused the offer. Held error.'" § 120. Impeaching dying statements. — Dying declarations may be impeached or discredited in like manner that the testimony of the deceased could have been impeached or discredited, had he appeared on the witness-stand as a witness ; and the credibility of such declara- tions is to be determined by the same tests and rules as are applied in determining the weight of any other testimony.''^ It is competent to- show on cross-examination of a witness that the deceased, in making his dying statement, was in a reckless, irreverent state of mind; that he was hostile toward the accused, and that he used profane language. '''■ or others attending him expressinff 57 N. W. 652, 1065. See S. v- an opinion that he could not recover, Schmidt, 73 Iowa 469, 35 N. W. 590; is competent: S. v. Young, 104 Iowa Dixon v. S., 13 Pla. 636. 730, 74 N. W. 693; Polly v. Com., "P. v. Kraft, 148 N. Y. 631, 4.? 15 Ky. L. 502, 24 S. W. 7; P. v. N. E. 80; S. v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 67; Weaver, 108 Mich. 649, 66 N. W. Boyle v. S., 105 Ind. 469, 55 Am. R. 567; Lemons v. S., 97 Tenn. 560, 218, 5 N. E. 203; S. v. Pearce, 56 37 S. W. 552. Minn. 226, 57 N. W. 652, 1065; White "Justice V. S., 99 Ala. 181, 13 So. v. S., Ill Ala. 92, 21 So. 330; Shell 658; Jordan v. S., 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. v. S., 88 Ala. 17, 7 So. 40; S. v. 460; Vass v. Com., 3 Leigh (Va.) Gay, 18 Mont. 57, 44 Pac. 411; Peck 786; Baxter v. S., 15 Lea (Tenn.) v. S., 50 N. J. L. 179, 12 Atl. 701. 666; Lamheth v. S., 23 Miss. 322; ™ S. v. Elliott, 45 Iowa 486, 2 Am. Com. V. Casey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 417, C. R. 323. 59 Am. D. 150; Campbell v. S, 38 "Lester v. S., 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. Ark. 509; S. v. Shaifer, 23 Or. 555, 32 232; P. v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112; Car- Pac. 545; S. v. McCanon, 51 Mo. ver v. U. S., 164 U. S. 694, 17 S. Ct. 160; Walker v. S., 42 Tex. 360; 228; Redd v. S., 99 Ga. 210, 25 S. E. White V. S., Ill Ala. 92, 21 So. 330; 268. McQueen v. S., 94 Ala. 50, 10 So. "Tracy v. P., 97 111. 107. 433; S. v. Pearce, 56 Minn. 226, hughes' c. l. — 3 34 hughes' criminal law. § 121 § 121, Impeaching by contradictions. — It is well settled that dying declarations naay be impeached by proof of contradictory statements on material points, though such contradictory statements were not made in extremis.''^ Contradictory statements made in the declara- iion itself or in difEerent declarations which are admissible as dying declarations may be considered as affecting their credibility.'* •§ 122. Sustaining after impeachment. — If the defendant intro- duces impeaching evidence to impeach dying declarations, the prose- cution may then introduce evidence to sustain the same.'^ § 123. Inpeaching dying statements. — The dying statement tended to prove that the deceased took a quantity of calomel for the purpose of procuring an abortion, and that such abortion occurred as a result, on July 19th; that the defendant gave her the calomel and directed her to take it for that purpose. For the purpose of impeaching the •dying declaration, the defendant offered to prove that on the next day, July 20th, in a conversation with her, in the presence of others, she referred to another person as having helped her out of her "trouble, referring to the abortion ; that she said to the defendant among other things: "When I was in trouble, you were not willing to help me out." -Held error to refuse this testimony.'* § 124. Jury taking written statement, improper. — In addition to the written dying declarations of the deceased, declarations made on four other occasions were reproduced by witnesses for the state. The written statement contained portions which were held incompetent by the court, and the jury were directed to disregard such portions. The defendant introduced witnesses whose testimony was in direct ■conflict with material portions of the dying declarations. Permitting ihe jury to take with them the written declarations to the jury-room Ts^hen considering of their verdict, was held an abuse of the discretion " Dunn V. P., 172 111. 591, 50 N. E. 94. Contra, Wroe v. S., 20 OUo St. 137; Shell v. S., 88 Ala. 14, 7 So. 40; 460. Morelock v. S., 90 Tenn. '528, 18 S. "Leigh v. P., 113 111. 372; Mc- W. 258; Carver v. U. S., 164 U. S. Pherson v. S., 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 279; €94; Battle v. S., 74 Ga. 101; S. v. Moore v. S., 12 Ala. 764, 46 Am. D. Xodge, 9 Houst. (Del.) 542, 33 Atl. 276. 312; P. V. Lawrence, 21 Cal. 368; " S. v. Cralne, 120 N. C. 601, 27 T'elder v. S., 23 Tex. App. 477, 59 S. E. 72; S. v. Blackburn, 80 N. C. Am. R. 777, 5 S. W. 145; Nelms v. 474. S., 13 S. & M. (Miss.) BOO, 53 Am. D. ™ Dunn v. P., 172 111. 592, 50 N. E. 137. ■§ 125 HOMICIDE. 35 of the court, considering the incompetent portions. The jury may or may not have disregarded the marked incompetent portions.'''^ Suidivision 3. — Statements of Defendant. § 125. Declarations of defendant. — Declarations made by the de- fendant prior to the homicide that he intended to sell out and leave the community for fear he might have trouble with the deceased, are not competent as a defense.'^' § 126. Declaration of conspirator. — The declarations of one of the ■conspirators in reference to the deceased, made before the homicide, is competent against the others.'' Where persons enter into a con- spiracy to kill another and accomplish the deed, all are alike guilty, -and it is not material which one of the conspirators may have given the fatal blow.*" § 127. Confessions competent. — A confession of one charged with murder, freely and voluntarily given, without inducements or threats, is admissible against him.*^ § 128. Statements at inquest. — It is well settled that parol evidence is admissible to prove what the accused voluntarily disclosed before ihe coroner's jury, if it is shown that his examination there was not reduced to writing.^^ The accused having voluntarily made a state- ment before the coroner, such statement, if otherwise copipetent, may be read in evidence on the trial, even if the accused declined to sign it after it had been made and written out.^^ § 129. Previous assault, when incompetent. — Evidence that about a year before the homicide the defendant assaulted the deceased, is incompetent where it further appears that in the meantime the de- "Dunn V. P., 172 111. 588, 50 N. E. Pac. 161; S. v. Glahn, 97 Mo. 679, 11 137. S. W. 260; Dodson vr S., 86 Ala. 60, 5 "Red V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 414, 46 S. So. 485; 1 Greenl. Bv., § 220. "W. 408; Harrell v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. =^ Lyons v. P., 137 111. 618, 27 N. 204, 45 S. W. 581. E. 677; S. v. Parish, Busb. L. (N. "McDanlel v. S., 103 Ga. 268, 30 C.) 239; Rex v. Reed, M. & M. 403. S. E. 29. »» Epps v. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. ™ Thomas v. S.', 124 Ala. 48, 27 So. 491, 5 Am. C. R. 523; 1 Greenl. Ev., 315. See Dover v. S., 109 Ga. 485, 34 § 228; 1 Rus. Crimes (5th ed.), § 110; S. B. 1030. See Nite v. S. (Tex. Cr. P. v. Martinez, 66 Cal. 278, 5 Pac. App. 1899), 54 S. W. 763; "Evi- 261; Newton v. S., 21 Fla. 53; P. v. dence;" "Conspiracy." Mondon, 4 N. Y. Or. 112. "P. v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 19 36. hughes' criminal law. § 130 fendant frequently visited the deceased and continued such visits up to the time of her death.'* Subdivision ^. — Threats; Malice; Motive. § 130. Threats of defendant. — Threats made by the accused shortly before the homicide, of his purpose to kill some one, are competent as tending to prove malice, without reference to any particular per- son.*^ It is proper for the jury to take into consideration all the cir- cumstances under which the threats -were made by the accused, in de- termining whether or not they were the expression of a deliberate purpose or design to kill.'" Threats made by the defendant shortly before the homicide, against the deceased, are competent as tending to show the animus with which the killing was done, and that the de- fendant entertained an unfriendly feeling against the deceased.'^ A threatening letter, written by the defendant to the prosecuting witness, declaring, among other things, that there are not men enough on earth to stop him having his just dues, is competent in a case of assault with intent to kill, as tending to show hostile feelings of the defendant against the prosecuting witness.*' § 131. Threats of deceased competent. — Threats made by the de- ceased are admissible in eases of doubt, to prove that the deceased made the attack.'* Threats made by the deceased against the defend- ant, are admissible to prove that the deceased was seeking the life of the defendant, though such threats were not known by the defend- ant until after ike killing.*" Threats made by the deceased, when "Herman v. S., 75 Miss. 340, 22 So. 60; P. v. Chaves, 122 Cal. 134, 54 So. 873. Pac. 596; Rawlins v. S., 40 Pla. 155, 'i* Williams V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 612, 24 So. 65; "Waldron v. S., 41 Fla. 52 S. "W. 843; Brooks v. Com, 100 265 26 So 701. Ky. 194, 18 Ky. L. 702, 37 S. W. sa's. v. Lawrence, 70 Vt. 524, 41 1043; Trusty v. Com., 19 Ky. L. Atl. 1027. 706, 41 S. W. 766; P. v. Craig, ^^Whar. Cr. Bv. (8tli ed.l, § 757; 111 Cal. 460, 44 Pac. 186; Al- Allison v. U. S., 160 U. S. 203, 16 len V. S., Ill Ala. 80, 20 So. 490; S. v. S. Ct. 252, 10 Am. C. R. 443; Roberts Cochran, 147 Mo. 504, 49 S. W. 558; v. S., 68 Ala. 156. Harris V. S., 109 Ga. 280,34 S. B. 583. «> Campbell v. P., 16 111. 18; Wig- Contra, Holley v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 301, gins v. P., 93 U. S. 465, 4 Am. 46 S. W. 39; Godwin v. S., 38 Tex. C. R. 494; P. v. Scoggins, 37 Cr. 466, 43 S. W. 336; Gaines v. S. Cal. 676; Holler v. S., 37 Ind. 57; (Tex. Cr. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 623. S. v. Turpin, 77 N. C. 473; S. v. "■Bolzer v. P., 129 111. 120, 21 N. E. Harrod, 102 Mo. 590. 15 S. W. 373; 818. Young v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 929, 42 S. " McCoy v. P., 175 111. 233, 51 N. W. 1141. E. 777; Milton v. S., 40 Fla. 251, 24 § 132 HOMICIDE. 37 •known to the accused, are competent as tending to show that in mak- ing the assault on the deceased, he acted under a just fear of danger -to his life; but such threats are incompetent if not made known to the accused.®^ § 132. Threats of deceased, not competent. — Previous threats made by the deceased against the accused may be rejected as not competent, in case of self-defense, where the accused offers no evidence tending to prove self-defense."^ § 133. Reputation of deceased in rebuttal. — The defendant having introduced evidence tending to show self-defense, that he did the killing while the deceased was making a dangerous assault on him, the prosecution then had the right to show that the reputation of the •deceased for peaeeableness was good.°^ § 134. Evidence, when several killed. — On a charge of manslaugh- i:er where the killing was caused by the explosion of a steam boiler through alleged negligence of the defendant, it is proper to show the full extent of injury to all persons, but not their sufferings and treatment in hospitals.®* § 135. Friendship betv^een the persons. — ^Acts of friendship and association between the defendant and the deceased subsequent to the time of the threats made by the deceased, are competent against the •defendant under a plea of self-defense."^ § 136. Malice implied from weapon used. — The law implies malice from the killing with a deadly weapon, and thus imposes upon the accused the burden of showing a want of malice. This is the rule in this country and England."^ But the use of a deadly weapon does "Powell v. S., 19 Ala. 581; Lingo S. v. "Wiggins, 50 La. 330, 23 So. V. S., 29 Ga. 470; S. v. Gushing, 17 334; S. v. Hickey, 50 La. 600, 23 So. "Wash. 544, 50 Pac. 512. 504. "' S. V. Reed, 137 Mo. 125, 38 S. "W. »^ Thrawley v. S., 153 Ind. 375, 55 " S74. See also S. v. Helm, 92 Iowa N. B. 95. See Sims v. S., 38 Tex. -540, 61 N. "W. 246; S. v. McGonigle, Gr. 637, 44 S. "W. 522. 14 Wash. 594, 45. Pac. 20; Lester v. "P. v. Thompson, 122 Mich. 411, S., 37 Pla. 382, 20 So. 232; P. v. 81 N. "W. 344. Kennedy, 10 N. Y. Cr. 394, 22 ""Naugher v. S., 116 Ala. 463, 23 N. Y. Supp. 267; Cardwell v. Gom., So. 26. 20 Ky. L. 496, 46 S. "W. 705; S. v. '"Bankhead v. S., 124 Ala. 14, 26 Byrd, 121 N. C. 684, 28 S. E. 353; So. 979; S. v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491, 38 hughes' criminal law. ;§ 13T ,not raise a presumption of premeditation and design to take life^ .though sflch use does raise a presumption of malice."' Malice mj^j hf inferred where an act unlawful in itself is done deliberately with intention of mischief or great bodily harm to those on whom it may chance to light and death is occasioned by it.°* § 137. Malice, when not implied. — If the means employed be not dangerous to life, or, in other words, if the blows causing death are inflicted with the fist, and there are no aggravating circumstances,, the law will not raise the implication of malice aforethought, which must exist to make the crime murder. The distinguishing charac- teristic respecting the two crimes of murder and manslaughter is malice.*® § 138. Evidence of motive. — It is competent to show in evidence- > the unchastity of the wife, if such unehastity be her motive for killing her husband; that is, if she desired his death to give her more free- dom to indulge in her lust.^"" § 139. Previous relations — ftuarrels. — On the trial of a husband for the murder of his wife, the character of the relations existing between them, such as quarrels, angry discussions, personal violence, cruel treatment and the like conduct, may be shown in evidence- against him.^ ,538; McQueen v. S., 103 Ala. 12, 15 735; Spies v. P., 122 III. 1, 174, 12 N. So. 824; S. v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa E. 865, 17 N. B. 898; S. v. Kimball, 50- 447; Kent v. P., 8 Colo. 563, 9 Pac. Me. 409; Van Houten v. S., 46 N. J. 852, 5 Am. R. 419; Miller v. S., 107 L. 16; Hutchison v. Com., 82 Pa. St. Ala. 40, 19 So. 37; S. v. Davis, 9 472; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 144; S. v. Kort- Houst. (Del.) 407, 33 Atl. 55; S. v. gaard, 62 Minn. 7, 64 N. W. 51. Foreman, 1 Marv. (Del.) 517, 41 Atl. " P. v. Munn, 65 Cal. 211, 3 Pac. 140; S. V. Earnest, 56 Kan. 31, 42 650, 6 Am. C. R. 433; Wellar v. P., Pac. 359; Clarke v. S., 117 Ala. 1, 23 30 Mich. 16, 1 Am. C. R. 280; S. v.. So. 671; Holderman v. Ter. (Ariz.), McNab, 20 N. H. 160; S. v. Smith,. 60 Pac. 876; Bondurant v. S. (Ala.), 32 Me. 369; Darry v. P., 10 N. Y. 27 So. 775; 4 Bl. Com. 200; 3 Greenl. 120. Ev., § 144. Contra, S. v. Cross, 42 ™Weyrich v. P., 89 111. 98; P. v.. W. Va. 253, 24 S. E. 996. See Under- Scott, 153 N. Y. 40, 46 N. E. 1028; hill Cr. Bv., § 320. S. v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44, 38 S. W. "'North Carolina v. Gosnell, 74 554, 39 S. W. 266; Webb v. S., 73 Fed. 734. Miss. 456, 19 So. 238; S. v. Chase, 68 "Adams v. P., 109 111. 450; Mayes Vt. 405, 35 Atl. 336; Fraser v. S., 55 v. P., 106 111. 313; Davison v. P., Ga. 325, 1 Am. C. R. 315; P. v. Par- 90 111. 229; Kent v. P., 8 Colo. 563, melee, 112 Mich. 291, 70 N. W. 577; 9 Pac. 852, 5 Am. C. R. 420; Fitch v. Underhill Cr. Ev., §§ 90, 323; Brun- S., 37 Tex. Cr. 500, 36 S. W. 584; S. son v. S., 124 Ala. 37, 27 So. 410. V. Coleman, 6 Rich. (S. C.) 185, 3 " S. v. Seymour, 94 Iowa 699, 63 N. Am. C. R. 180; Head V. S., 44 Miss. W. 661; S. v. Cole, 63 Iowa 695, 17 N- §140 HOMICIDE. 39 § 140. Motive not indispensable. — It is not necessary to establish ,a motiye to warrant a conviction on a charge of homicide, if the case is otherwise clearly proven.^ § 141. Threats of defendant — ^Motive. — Where it appeared that the defendant, a cattle man, was threatening sheep men generally,, with deadly weapons, that he had threatened the deceased, a sheep herder, it was held competent to show that shortly before the homi- cide he had threatened and made attacks on other sheep herders on the range, as tending to prove motive for the homicide.* § 142. Previous relations — Adulterous. — Any fact or circumstance which tends to show motive or want of motive for killing a person, is competent evidence on a charge of homicide; as, if the defendant and deceased had lived in adultery with the same woman in whose presence the deceased was killed, such fact tends to prove motive for the homicide.* § 143. Defendant's cruelty competent. — Evidence of statements made by a husband reflecting on the character of his wife while living; with her, and his treatment showing his desire to get rid of her, may be shown in evidence against him on the charge of murdering her, as tending to prove motive.^ § 144. Hostile feelings. — That the defendant on several occasions prior to the homicide, expressed feelings of hostility and dislike to- ward the deceased, may be shown in evidence, though the language used did not amount to threats against the deceased." W. 183; Phillips v. S., 62 Ark. 119, 33 S. W. 28; P. v. Johnson, 139 N. 34 S. W. 539; Painter v. P., 147 111. Y. 358, 34 N. E. 920; Hornshy v. S., 444, 35 N. E. 64; S. v. Bradley, 67 Vt. 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522. 465, 32 Atl. 238; P. v. Colvin, 118 » S. v. Davis (Idaho), 53 Pac. 678. Cal. 349, 50 Pac. 539; P. v. Buchan- *S. v. Reed, 50 La. 990, 24 So. 131; an, 145 N. Y. 1, 39 N. B. 846; Boyle S. v. Larkin, 11 Nev. 314; Mc- v. S., 61 Wis. 440, 21 N. W. 289; Si- Cue v. Com., 78 Pa. St. 185; Under- berry v. S., 149 Ind. 684, 39 N. B. hill Cr. Ev., § 323. See Com. v. Fry- 936; Thiede v. Utah Ter., 159 U. (Pa. 1901), 48 Atl. 257. S. 510, 16 S. Ct. 62; P. v. Decker, "P. v. Buchanan, 145 N. Y. 1, 39> 157 N. Y. 186, 51 N. B. 1018; Un- N. E. 846; P. v. Benham, 160 N. Y. derhill Cr. Bv., § 333; Spears v. S. 402, 55 N. B. 11, 14 N. Y. Cr. 434. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 347. 63 N. Y. Supp. 923. See S. v. Cal- ' Johnson v. U. S., 157 V. S. 320, laway, 154 Mo. 91, 55 S. W. 444. 15 S. Ct. 614; Com. v. Hudson, 97 'P. v. Barthleman, 120 Cal. 7, 52; Mass. 565; S. v. David, 131 Mo. 380, Pac. 112. 40 hughes' criminal law.^ § 145 § 145. Preparation for flight. — Preparation for flight after the homicide by attempting to hire a conveyance to take the defendant away from the neighborhood is competent.'^ Subdivision 5. — Opinions; Other Offenses. § 146. Post-mortem examination. — The mere fact that a post-mor- tem examination is made some time after the death (as one month) is not in itself any reason why the result of such examination should be excluded, unless the interval is so long and the condition of the body is such that the jury could not reasonably find whether its condition was attributable to the ante-mortem or post-mortem causes.* § 147. Opinion of police, damaging. — The evidence being entirely circumstantial and the life of the accused involved, it was error to permit a police officer to state that on the night of the homicide: "I saw Michael McHugh and learned that he knew about Devine (the defendant) and Williams, and we of the police formed the theory that they were the men that had done the shooting."' § 148. What witness thought. — A witness will not be permitted to iell what he thought on seeing one of two persons who were quarrel- ing over a game, put his hand to his hip pocket.^" § 149. Evidence of other poisonings. — Where a prisoner was charged with the murder of her child by poison, and the defense was that its death resulted from an accidental taking of such poison, evi- dence that two other children of hers and a lodger in her house had died previous to the present charge under like circumstances by poi- son, was held to be admissible.^^ § 150. Evidence of other offense. — A person may be guilty as one of the burglars in stealing goods, but not guilty of a homicide com- mitted by the others while concealing the goods the same night in the same community, the offenses being distinet.^^ ' Teague v. S., 120 Ala. 309, 25 So. " Reg. v. Roden, 12 Cox C. C. 630, 2 209; P. V. Flannelly, 128 Cal. 83, 60 Green C. R. 34; Reg. v. Cotton, 12 Pac. 670; S. v. Morgan (Utah), 61 Cox C. C. 400, 1 Green C. R. 102; Pac. 527. See "Evidence." Zoldoske v. S., 82 Wis. 580, 52 N. W. ' Williams v. S., 64 Md. 384, 1 Atl. 778. But see Shafener v. Com., 72 887, 5 Am. C. R. 513. Pa. St. 60, 2 Green C. R. 508; Un- • Devine v. P., 100 111. 293. derhill Cr. Ev., § 319. "Walker v. P., 133 111. 114, 24 " Lamb v. P., 96 111. 82. See "Con- N, E. 424. spiracy." § 151 HOMICIDE. 41 § 151,- Evidence of other felony. — The defendant, after killing the deceased, in the house of the latter, in about half an hour com- mitted the crime of rape on deceased's wife at the barn, they not hav- ing separated from the time of the killing to the time of the rape. Held distinct offenses, and to admit evidence of the rape was error.^* § 152. Eye-witnesses should be called." — In eases of homicide and in others where analogous reasons exist, those witnesses who were present at the transaction, or who can give direct evidence on any material branch of it, should always be called (by the prosecution), unless possibly where too numerous; that is, where there is no doubt or dispute as to the presence of the witnesses.^* § 153. Non-expert, about blood. — Any ordinary or non-expert wit- ness may testify that stains which he saw on clothing or other arti- cles, looked like blood, and a chemical test of such stains is not essen- tial to render his evidence competent.^' § 154. Official character of deceased. — The official character of the person killed may be proved, though not alleged in the indictment, as showing the legal relations and duties of the person killing and person killed, but not as aggravating or modifying the crime.^* Subdivision 6. — Variance : Instructions. § 155. Variance — ^As to time. — Under an indictment containing an averment that the mortal wound killed the deceased instantly, '^Parris v. P., 129 111. 529, 21 N. E. 966; Lynn v. P., 170 111. 535, 48 E. 821. See "Evidence," "Consplr- N. E. 964; Boyd v. S., 17 Ga. 194; acy;" S. v. Shuford, 69 N. C. 486. Wright v. S., 18 Ga. 383. The facts 1 Green C. R. 247. shown in the following cases were "Wellar v. P., 30 Mich. 16, 1 Am. held sufficient to sustain conviction C. R. 282; P. v. Kindra, 102 Mich, of murder: Com. v. Morrison, 193 148, 60 N. W. 458; Bonker v. P., 37 Pa. St. 613, 44 Atl. 913; S. v. Gala- Mich. 4, 2 Am. C. R. 82; Donaldson way, 154 Mo. 91, 55 S. W. 444; Com. V. Com., 95 Pa. St. 21; Thompson v. Krause, 193 Pa. St. 306, 44 Atl. V. S., 30 Tex. App. 325, 17 S. W. 448. 454; Bridgewater v. S., 153 Ind. 560, Contra, Onofri v. Com. (Pa.), 11 Atl. 55 N. B. 737; McKinney v. S. (Tex. 463; Selph v. S., 22 Fla. 539. See Cr. App. 1900), 55 S. W. 341; S. v. , "Witnesses." Fisher, 23 Mont. 540, 59 Pac. 919; "S. V. Welch, 36 W. Va. 690, 15 Waggoner v. S. (Tex. Cr. App. 1900), S. E. 419; P. V. Smith, 106 Cal. 73, 55 S. W. 491; Garrett v. S. (Tex. 39 Pac. 40; P. v. Smith, 112 Cal. 333, Cr. App. 1900), 55 S. W. 501; Al- 44 Pac. 663; S. v. Bradley, 67 Vt. verez v. S., 41 Fla. 532, 27 So. 40; 465, 32 Atl. 238; P. v. Deacons, 109 Jennings v. P. (111.), 59 N. B. 515; N. Y. 374, 16 N. B. 676; Dillard v. P. v. Clarke, 130 Cal. 642, 63 Pac. S., 58 Miss. 368. 139 (second degree); P. v. Ferraro, "North T. P., 139 111. 101, 28 N. 161 N. Y. 365, 55 N. E. 931, 14 N. 42 hughes' criminal law. § 15$ proof that he did not die for some time after the wound was inflicted is competent, and there is no yariance.^' § 156. No variance — Shooting or drowning. — The defendant was. charged in the same count in an indictment with committing a mur- der by shooting and drowning the deceased. The indictment was supported by evidence that the defendant shot the deceased and im- mediately threw him into the sea, leaving it doubtful whether he was killed by the shooting or by drowning.^' § 157. Variance — "Means unknown." — If the indictment alleges; that the defendant committed murder with an instrument, to the grand jury unknown, and it should appear on the trial that by reason- able diligence they could have found out the character of the instru- ment, this would not constitute a fatal variance; but if it should appear on the trial that they did know what instrument was used in causing death, this would constitute a fatal variance.^* § 158. Verdict as to degree. — The information, which conforms to the statute and is in the usual form, merely charges murder without charging in what way it was committed or in what degree. Under the statute the jury must find the degree of the offense, and it can not be treated as murder in the first degree unless expressly so found."" § 159. Verdict of manslaughter acquits of murder. — ^A conviction of manslaughter on a charge of murder is an acquittal of the murder .charge. Manslaughter is included in an indictment for murder."^ Y. Cr. 266; S. v. Pepo, 23 Mont. 668. Evidence not sufficient: Cros- 473, 59 Pac. 721; S. v. Headrick, 149 by v. P. (111.), 59 N. E. 546. Mo. 396, 51 S. W. 99; S. v. Hicks. "Reddick v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 47 125 N. C. 636, 34 S. B. 247; Speights S. "W. 993; Debney v. S., 45 Neb. 856. V. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap. 1899), 54 S. W. 64 N. W. 446. ' 595; P. V. Wise, 163 N. Y. 440, 57 N. "Andersen v. U. S., 170 U. S. 481. E. 740; S. V. Miller, 156 Mo. 76, 56 S. 18 S. Ct. 689. W. 907. The facts shown in the fol- " Terry v. S., 120 Ala. 286, 25 So. lowing cases were held sufficient to 176. See "Variance." sustain conviction of manslaughter: ""P. v. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N. Williams r. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap. 1899), W. 665, 4 Am. C. R. 358; Graves v. 54 S. W. 759; S. v. Smith, 78 Minn. S.,' 45 N. J. L. 203, 4 Am. C. R. 388. 362, 81 N. W. 17; Keesier v. S., ^^ Brennan v. P., l5 111. 518; P. v. 154 Ind. 242, 56 N. E. 232; Bonardo Gllmore, 4 Cal. 376; Hurt v. S., 25 v. P., 182 111. 411, 55 N. B. 519; P. Miss. 378; Harnett v. P., 54 111. 325; V. Harris, 125 Cal. 94, 57 Pac. 780; S. v. Tweedy, 11 Iowa 350; Jones v. P. V. Anderson (Cal. 1901), 63 Pac. S., 13 Tes. 184; Johnson v. S., 29 J 160 HOMICIDE. 43 § 160. Instruction in words of statute. — The statute of Illinois is as jfoUpws: "Tlie kQling being proved, the burden of proving cir- cumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse the homicide, will |devolve on the accused, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution sufiSciently manifests that t^e crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that the accused was justified or ex- cused in committing the homicide." Held that an instruction in the language of this statute is not improper. ^^ The statute of the same state relating to self-defense is as follows: "If a person kill another in self-defense, it must appear that the danger wa& so urgent and pressing that in order to save his own life, or to pre- vent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and it must appear, also, that the person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given." An instruction in the language of this section, if not modified by some other instruction, is erroneous.^^ But if the above section relating to self-defense be given as an instruction in connection with the section of the criminal code defining justifiable homicide, it will not be erroneous; which latter section reads as fol- lows : "Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in neces- sary self-defense, or in the defense of habitation, property or person,, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or sur- prise to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, bur- glary and the like, upon either person or property, or against any person or persons, who manifestly intend or endeavor, in a violent,, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein. A bare fear of any of these offenses, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable per- son and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears, and not in a spirit of revenge."^* Ark. 31; P. v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112, ^'Enright v. P., 155 111. 35. 39 N. 1 Green C. R. 253; 1 McClain Cr. L., E. 561; McCoy v. P., 175 111. 230, 51 § 390. Contra, Bohanan v. S., 18 N. B. 777; Galney v. P., 97 III. 277. Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 6 Am. C. R. "Kinney v. P., 108 111. 524; Apple- 488; S. V. Behimer, 20 Ohio St. 572; ton v. P., 171 111. 479, 49 N. B. 708. Com. v. Arnold, 83 Ky. 1, 7 Am. C. R. See Enright v. P., 155 111. 32, 39 N. 210. B. 561; Healy v. P., 163 111. 383, 45^ == Duncan v. P., 134 111. 118, 24 N. B. 230. N. E. 765. 44 hughes' criminal law. § 161 § 161. Instruction erroneous. — A summary instruction, though in proper form and embodying all the essential facts constituting mur- der, but which concludes by directing the jury that if they believe such facts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they should find the defendant guilty of murder, is erroneous as tending to force a conviction for murder instead of manslaughter where the jury may, dn their judgment, return a verdict of manslaughter.^^ § 162. Instruction as to verdict. — An instruction to the jury that their "verdict should be either guilty of murder in the first degree or not guilty," is erroneous, there being no claim or pretense that the murder, if committed, was perpetrated by means of poison or lying in wait. If there had, perhaps the instruction given might have been proper.^* But where there is no evidence of a lower degree or in- cluded crime, the court may instruct the jury to convict of the crime charged or acquit.^"* § 163. Venue — Place of death. — If a fatal blow is given in one state and death occurs in another, the defendant may be tried in the •state where death took place.^"'' But the federal courts hold that such jurisdiction does not exist unless conferred by statute.^^ The mod- ern and more rational view is that the crime is committed where the unlawful act is done and that the subsequent death, at another place, can not change the locality of the crime. ^' § 164. Stay of execution. — A stay of execution will be granted on satisfying the court that the defendant has become insane or is quick with child since conviction.^® § 165. Waiving rights. — It is an ancient maxim of the law that in capital cases the accused stands upon all his rights and waives nothing. ="Stelner v. P., 187 111. 245, 58 N. "U. S. v. McGill, 4 Dall. 427; U. E. 383; Lynn v. P., 170 111. 527, 48 S. v. Armstrong, 2 Curt. 446. See N. E. 964; Panton v. P., 114 111. 505, S. v. Hall, 114 N. C. 910, 19 S. B. 2 N. E. 411. 602. =» Baker v. P., 40 Mich. 411, 3 Am. " S. v. Kelly, 78 Me. 331, 5 Am. C. R. 170; Stevenson v. U. S., 162 C. R. 344^ Com. v. Macloon, 101 U. S. 312. Mass. 1. ''"a 1 McClain Cr. L., § 391, citing " Spann v. S., 47 Ga. 549, 1 Green Sparf v. U. S., 156 V. S. 51, 15 S. Ct. C. R. 393; 1 Hale P. C. 368. If the 273, 10 Am. C. R. 212; S. v. McKln- convict becomes insane after con- ney. 111 N. C. 683, 16 S. E. 235'. See viction, his mental condition prior ■"Instructions." to his conviction may be inquired =»b Tyler v. P., 8 Mich. 326; Kerr into: Spann v. S., 47 Ga. 549. Homicide, § 43. § 165 HOMICIDE. 4& He could not be prejudiced by failing to object to the incompetent damaging evidence which a juror brought out by asking an unsworn by-stander if the witness testifying told the truth as to his having been at a certain place named by the witness at a time stated.*" In another case, the defendant, an ignorant German, entered his plea of guilty to a charge of murder — having no counsel. He was sentenced to be hanged. At the same term he made application to withdraw the plea of guilty, which was overruled. This ruling was error under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the defendant did not waive his rights.*^ '"Dempsey v. P., 47 111. 325; Falk Loach v. S., 77 Miss. '691, 27 So. 618 V. P., 42 111. 335. (insanity). "Gardner v. P., 106 111. 79; De CHAPTEE II. ASSAULTS. Abt. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 166-178 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 179-301 III. Indictment, §§ 302-218 IV. Evidence; Variance, > §§ 219-338 Article I. Definition and Elements. « § 166. Assault defined. — An assault is an attempt or offer with force and violence to do a corporal hnrt to another.^ An assault has been defined as any attempt or offer, with force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another, whether wantonly or with a malicious in- tention, with such circumstances as denote an intention to do it at the time, coupled with a present ability to carry that intention into ex- ecution.- The approved definition of an assault involves the idea of an inchoate violence to the person of another, with the present means of carrying the intent into effect.^ § 167. Battery defined. — The least touching of another person willfully or in anger is a battery, — the unlawful beating of another. The law can not draw the line between different degrees of violence, and, therefore, totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it.* U Hawk. P. C, c. 63, § 1; 1 East "Chapman v. S., 78 Ala. 463, 6 P. C. 406; 3 Bl. Com. 120; 1 Russell Am. C. R. 38; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 62; Cr. 750. See S. v. Cody, 94 Iowa 169, P. v. LUley, 43 Mich. 521, 5 N. W. 62 N. W. 702, 10 Am. C. R. 40; S. 982; S. y. Godfrey, 17 Or. 300, 20 v. Malcolm, 8 Iowa 413. Pac. 625, 11 Am. St. 830. » Underbill Cr. Bv., § 352, cit- *Kirkland v. S., 43 Ind. 146, cit- ing Tarver v. S., 43 Ala. 354; U. S. ing 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 72; 1 Rus- V. Hand, 2 Wash. C. 0. 436. sell Cr. 751; 3 Cooley's Blackstone 120. (46) ^ 168 ASSAULTS. 4'if § 168. Spitting in face. — Spitting in a man's face or on his body, or throwing water on him, is a battery. Encouraging a dog to bite another is a battery." § 169. Unlawful beating. — There is no distinction between the statutory words "unlawful beating" and the word "battery" at com- mon law.* § 170. Administering poison. — The unlawful infliction of an in- jury by administering poison constitutes an assault.'' § 171. Putting in fear. — The defendant put his wife in fear by threats, causing her to Jump out of a window, breaking her leg. Held to be grievous bodily harm caused by the defendant.* § 172. Exposing infant. — Leaving an infant child in the street in the night time, exposed and without sufficient clothing, is an assault." § 173. Pointing loaded gun. — Pointing a loaded gun at another within shooting distance, and striking at another with a stick within striking distance without hitting, are assaults.^" But it is not an assault to point a loaded gun at another if there is no intention to do bodily harm.^^ § 174. Firing off gun. — Firing off a loaded gun in the direction ■of a person or crowd of persons constitutes an assault.^^ And shoot- 'McClainCr. L., § 235; S. v. Baker, S. E. 975, 10 Am. C. R. 38; S. v. 65 N. C. 332; Johnson v. S., 17 Reavis, 113 N. C. 677, 18 S. E. 388. Tex. 515; S. v. Philley, 67 Ind. 304; See Keefe v. S., 19 Ark. 190; S. v. S. V. Myers, 19 Iowa 517; Murdock Taylor, 20 Kan. 643; P. v. McMakln, T. S., 65 Ala. 520; Com. v. Hagen- 8 Cal. 547; Com. v. White, 110 Mass. lock, 140 Mass. 125, 3 N. E. 36. See 407; S. v.' Epperson, 27 Mo. 255; P. V. Manchego, 80 Cal. 306, 22 Pac. Tollett v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap. 1900), 55 223. Contra, Alston v. S., 109 Ala. S. W. 335. 51, 20 So. 81. " S. v. Sears, 86 Mo. 169; Richels •Hunt v. P., 53 111. App. 111. v. S., 33 Tenn. 606. 'Carr v. S., 135 Ind. 1, 9 Am. C. "S. v. Merrltt, 62 N. C. 134; S. v. R. 80, 41 Am. St. 408, 34 N. B. 533. Baker, 20 R. I. 275, 38 Atl. 653; S. contra. Garnet v. S., 1 Tex. App. v. Myers, 19 Iowa 517; Smith v. 605, 28 Am. R. 405. Com., 100 Pa. St. 324; S. v. Nash, »S. V. Gorham, 55 N. H. 152; Reg.- 86 N. C. 650, 41 Am. R. 472. See' T. Hilliday, Kerr Horn., i 2, p. 3; Cowley v. S., 78 Tenn. 282; Com. V. White, 110 Mass. 407. S. v. Triplett, 52 Kan. 678, 35 Pac. •Com. V. Stoddard, 91 Mass. 280. 815; P. v. Hannigan, 58 N. Y. Supp. "S. V. Lightsey. 43 S. C. 114, 20 703 (officer). 48 HUGHES* CRIMINAL LAW. § 175 ing at another where the gun is loaded only with powder, is an assault.^^ § 175. Fighting with fists. — If two persons, by agreement and without anger, fight with their fists, they are both guilty of an as- sualt.^* Striking another in mutual combat, or after the necessity to strike in defense of oneself has passed, constitutes an assault, al- though the accused may not have been in fault in bringing on the difficulty." § 176. Prize-fighting. — Prize-fighting, boxing matches and en- counters of that kind, serve no useful purpose, tend to breaches of the peace, and are unlawful even when entered into by agreement and without anger or material ill-will. All persons aiding and abet- ting are guilty.^* § 177. Society punishment. — The defendants and prosecutrix were members of a benevolent society known as the "Good Samaritans," which society had certain rules and ceremonies of initiation and ex- pulsion. The ceremony of expulsion consisted in suspending the person from the wall by means of a cord fastened around the waist. Inflicting this punishment against the will of the person constitutes assault and battery.^^ § 178. Shooting third person. — If a person make an assault by shooting at a certain person intending to kill, and he hits another person, he is guilty of assault with intent to kill the person so hit.^' "Crumbley v. S., 61 Ga. 582. "S. v. Williams, 75 N. C. 134, 1 "S. v. Bryson, 60 N. C. 478; Com. Am. C. R. 56, citing Bell v. Hans- V. Collberg, 119 Mass. 350. Contra, ley, 3 Jones (N. C.) 131. Barholt v. Wright, 45 Ohio St. 177, "Dunaway v. P., 110 111. 336; S. 12 N. B. 185; Com. v. Miller, 35 Ky. v. Meadows, 18 W. Va. 658; Walker 320. V. S., 8 Ind. 290; Callahan v. S., 21 "'Harris v. S., 123 Ala. 69, 26 So. Ohio St. 306; Vandermark v. P., 47 515. 111. 122. See S. v. Myers, 19 Iowa "Com. V. Collberg, 119 Mass. 351, 517; Hollywood v. P., 3 Keyes (N. 1 Am. C. R. 59, citing 2 Greenl. Y.) 55; Smith v. Com., 100 Pa. St. Ev., I 85; Bell v. Hansley, 3 Jones 324; Powell v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 230,. (N. C.) 131; Champer v. S., 14 Ohio 22 S. W. 677. St. 437; Reg. v. Coney, 8 Q. B. D. 535. § 179 ASSAULTS. 49 Article II. Matters of Defense. § 179. Force against force. — A person who is unlawfully assaulted may defend himself, although he is not in danger of losing his life or of suffering great bodily harm. He may repel force with a rea- sonable amount of force.^* § 180. Pistol in hand only. — The accused held a pistol in one hand,, but did not shoot or attempt to shoot or strike the witness with it.. On conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, the court should have; given a new trial.'"' § 181. Pointing unloaded gun. — An assault is an attempt to com- mit a battery; and an attempt is, according to common legal under- standing, an intent to do a thing combined with an act which falls short of the thing intended. Pointing an unloaded pistol at a person at the distance of six paces does not constitute an assault.^^ Present- ing an unloaded gun at one who supposes it to be loaded, although within shooting distance if loaded, is not an assault.^^ Pointing an unloaded gun at another, some distance off, putting such other per- son in fear, is not an assault with a dangerous weapon.^* § 182. Picking up stone. — The defendant, in picking up a stone when about twenty steps from the person with whom he was having an altercation, but making no effort to throw it at him, is not guilty of an assault.^* § 183. Taking hold of person. — Under the statute of Texas "in- tent to injure" is an essential element of assault and battery. There- "S. v. Goering, 106 Iowa 636, 77 Green C. R. 270; Clark v. S., 84 Ga. N. W. 327; P. v. Teixelra, 123 Cal. 577, 10 S. B. 1094; S. v. Hubbs, 58 297, 55 Pao. 988. See P. v. Will- Ind. 415. Contra, S.v. Cherry, 11 iams, 118 Mich. 692, 77 N. W. 248. Ired. 475. "• Tarpley v. P., 42 111. 342. '' S. v. Godfrey, 17 Or. 300, 20 Pac. "McKay v. S., 44 Tex. 43, 1 Am. 625, 11 Am. St. 830; Tarver v. S., 0. R. 53; Crow v. S., 41 Tex. 468. 43 Ala. 354; Clark v. S., 84 Ga. 577, ''Chapman v. S., 78 Ala. 463, 6 10 S. B. 1094; Thomas v. S., 99 Ga. Am. C. R. 37, 56 Am. R. 42; P. v. 38, 26 S. B. 748; S. v. Archer, 8 Kan.. Morehouse, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638, 6 App. 737, 54 Pac. 927. N. Y. Supp. 763; S. v. Shepard, 10 "Brown v. S., 95 Ga. 481, 20 S. E. Iowa 126; S. v. Smith, 21 Tenn. 457; 495; S. v. Milsaps, 82 N. C. 549. See. S. V. Archer, 8 Kan. App. 737, 54 Cutler v. S., 59 Ind. 300; S. v. Mc- Pac. 927. See also 3 Greenl. Bv. 59; Afee, 107 N. C. 812, 12 S. E. 435;, Com. V. White, 110 Mass. 407, 2 S. v. Marsteller, 84 N. C. 726; S*. hughes' c. l.— 4 50 hughes' criminal law. § 184 fore, the taking hold of a woman's hand and rubbing one's thumb in the palm of it, and asking her if she knew what that meant, is not an assanlt.^^ § 184. Deadly weapon defined. — ^A dangerous or deadly weapon is a weapon likely to produce death or great bodily harm, considering" the manner in which it is used.^° § 185. Ax, hoe, knife, knuckles. — ^An ax is a deadly weapon, and the court may, as a matter of law, declare it to be sueh.^' A hoe is per se a deadly weapon and so is a "large piece of timber or club.'"'' A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon.^" Brass knuckles are not necessarily a deadly weapon, nor is a pistol.^" ;^ 186. Striking with pistol. — Striking a person severe blows on ihe head with a pistol, not in self-defense and without any excuse, constitutes an assault with intent to inflict bodily injury.^^ § 187. Exploding gunpowder. — ^Attempting violence on the per- son of another by the explosion of a keg of gunpowder is an assault with a deadly weapon, although the person making such attempt was not present when the explosion occurred.'^ § 188. Deadly weapon, question of fact. — It is for the jury to de- termine in cases of doubt whether the weapon used was dangerous or -V. Martin, 85 N. C. 508, 39 Am. R. =» Hamilton v. P., 113 111. 34, 55 711; Atterberry v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. Am. R. 396; S. v. Phillips, 104 N. C. 88, 25 S. W. 125. 786, 10 S. E. 463; S. v. Shields, 110 ' "McConnell v. S., 25 Tex. App. N. C. 499, 14 S. E. 779. See S. v. 329, 8 S. W. 275; Crawford v. S., 21 Thompson, 30 Mo. 470 (hoe); S. v. Tex. App. 454, 1 S. W. 446. Alfred, 44 La. An. 582, 10 So. 887. '"'Long V. Com., 18 Ky. L. 176, 35 "Parks v. S. (Tex. Ap.), 15 S. W. •S. W. 919; Garner v. S., 28 Pla. 113, 174. See Com. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. « So. 835; S. v. Godfrey, 17 Or. 300, 342, 20 Am. R. 325; Pinson v. S., 23 20 Pac. 625, 11 Am. St. 830; P. v. Tex. 579. Hodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 11 Pac. 481; *> Ballard v. S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. McNary v. P., 32 111. App. 58; Hamil- "W. 674; Key v. S., 12 Tex. App. 506; ton V. P., 113 111. 34, 55 Am. R. 396; Branch v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 304, 33 S. Hunt v. S., 6 Tex. App. 663. W. 356. " S. V. Ostrander, 18 Iowa 456. " Allen v. P., 82 111. 610. See P. v. See "Webb v. S., 100 Ala. 47, 14 So. Miller, 91 Mich. 639, 52 N. W. 65 •865; Mask v. S., 36 Miss. 77. See Skidmore v. S., 2 Tex. App. 20. Contra, Melton v. S., 30 Tex. App. ""P. v, Pape, 66 CaL 366, 5 Pac. 273, 17 S. W. 257. See Underbill 621. Cr. Bv., § 356. i§ 189 ASSAULTS. 51 deadly in its character or not, or where the manner of its use deter- mines its character.** § 189. Assault to commit larceny. — Under the statute defining assault with intent to commit murder, larceny or other felony, the word "larceny" will not be construed to mean grand larceny; and it matters not as to the value of the property, — it will be a felony.** § 190. Assault to commit felony. — "An assault with intent to com- mit a felony is, at common law, only a misdemeanor; hence, as the ^rade of the offense is the same as that of a simple assault, the aver- ment of a felonious intent can be stricken out and a conviction had for assault."*^ § 191. With intent to murder. — In prosecutions for assault with intent to murder, the specific intent is the gist of the offense, and it must be such an assault that if death ensues, it is murder.** All the 'ingredients of murder, except the killing, enter into and are neces- sary to constitute the crime of assault with intent to commit the crime of murder. At least there must be malice, express or implied", that would make the assailant a murderer, had he taken life in the as- sault.*' § 192. Assault with intent to murder. — While it may be said that «very willful murder committed by lying in wait is a deliberate and premeditated murder — in the first degree, yet it does not follow that ■every assault made lying in wait is made for the deliberate and pre- meditated purpose of committing murder.** If the homicide — in •case death had ensued — ^would have been but manslaughter, then the ''Doering V. S., 49 Ind. 56, 19 Am. "Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 656, 13 R. 669; P. v. Rodrlgo, 69 Cal. 601, N. E. 213, citing 1 Whar. Cr. L. 11 Pac. 481; P. v. Cavanagh, 62 (8th ed.), § 641a; S. v. Scott, 24 Vt. How. Prac. (N. Y.) 187; Smallwood 127; Hunter v. Com., 79 Pa. St. 503; V. Com., 17 Ky. L. 1134, 33 S. W. Lewis v. S., 33 Ga. 131; S. v. John- «22; P. V. Leyba, 74 Cal. 407, 16 son, 30 N. J. L. 185. Pac. 200; S. v. Brown, 41 La. An. "Crosby v. P., 137 HI. 336, 27 N. 345, 6 So. 541; Shadle v. S., 34 B. 49; 2 Whar. Cr. L., § 1281; Dunn Tex. 572; S. v. Davis, 14 Nev. 407; v. P., 158 111. 589, 42 N. B. 47. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 356. See Par- " Smith v. S., 52 Ga. 88, 1 Am. C. TOtt V. Com., 20 Ky. L. 761, 47 S. W. R. 248, citing Meeks v. S., 51 Ga. 452. 429. "Kelly V. P., 132 111. 369, 24 N. E.- "Floyd v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 56. 342, 1 Am. C. R. 757. 52 hughes' CRIMINAL LAW. § l-GS defendant could not be guilty of the assault with intent to murder, hut only of a simple assault and battery.'' § 193. Assault by officer, drunken person. — If an officer arrest a person drunk and confine him until sober and then discharge him without taking him before a proper court, he is guilty of assault and battery.*" Or if an officer unlawfully detains another by holding him, he is guilty of an assault.*^ And also if an officer, in making an arrest, uses more force than is necessary to effect the arrest, he is guilty of an assault and battery.*^ § 194. Officer arresting drunken person. — Where a police officer arrests a person without a warrant, whom he believes to be intoxicated, and has good and reasonable cause for such belief, he is not guilty of an assault, although such person was not in fact intoxicated.*^ § 195. Mere insulting words. — Mere words, though provoking and insulting, will afEord no justification for an assault and battery.** Mere words, however opprobrious, can not be said to constitute the considerable provocation contemplated by the statute.*^ § 196. Assisting officer. — A bystander assisting an officer in making an arrest by command of the officer, is not guilty of an assault, al- ""Maherv. P., lOMich. 216; Elliott foile v. S., 54 N. J. L. 381, 24 Atl. v. S., 46 Ga. 159; S. v. Neal, 37 Me. 557, 16 L. R. A. 500; P. v. 468; Ex parte Brown, 40 Fed. 81. Wolven, 2 Bdm. Cas. (N. Y.) 108. See Williams v. S. (Fla. 1899), 26 Contra, S. v. Hunter, 106 N. C. So. 184. 796, 11 S. B. 366. « S. V. Parker, 75 N. C. 249, 22 Am. " Welburn v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 24 R. 669. S. W. 651; S. v. Briggs (Tex. Cr. " Smith V. S., 105 Ala. 136, 17 So. Ap.), 21 S. W. 46; S. v. Griffin, 87 107. Mo. 608; S. v. Workman, 39 S. C. "Ramsey v. S., 92 Ga. 53, 17 S. E. 151, 17 S. E. 694; Reld v. S., 71 Ga. 613; Mesmer V. Com., 26 Gratt. (Va.) 865; P. v. Moore, 3 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 976; S. v. Lafferty, 5 Har. (Del.) (N. Y.) 82; S. v. Herrington, 21 491; Beaverts v. S., 4 Tex. App. 175; Ark. 195; Burns v. S., 80 Ga. 544, Dilger v. Com., 88 Ky. 550, 11 Ky. L. 7 S. E. 88; Timon v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 67, 11 S. W. 651; Bowling v. Com., 7 363, 30 S. W. 808. See Moore v. Ky. L. 821; Golden v. S., 1 S. C. S., 102 Ga. 581, 27 S. E. 675. 292; S. v. Mahon, 3 Har. (Del.) « Steffy v. P., 130 111. 101, 22 N. B. 568; S. v. Fuller, 96 Mo. 165, 861; Warren v. S., 33 Tex. 517; 9 S. W. 583; Patterson v. S., 91 Ala. Smith v. S., 39 Miss. 523; S. v. 58, 8 So. 756; Mockabee v. Com., 78 Mooney, 62 N. C. 434. But see Ky. 380. S. V. Shipman, 81 N. C. 513; "Com. V. Presby, 80 Mass. 65; Cutler v. S., 59 Ind. 300; S. Com. v. Cheney, 141 Mass. 102, 6 v. Hampton, 63 N. C. 13. N. B. 724, 55 Am. R. 448. See Dela- ■§ 196 ASSAULTS. 53 though it turn out that the officer was a trespasser in making the arrest.*' § 197. Teacher inflicting punishment. — ^A school teacher inflicting corporal punishment on a pupil for disobeying the lawful rules of his school, is not guilty of an assault if the punishment be humane and reasonable.*^ A school-master punishing a child six years old by whipping with a switch, making marks on her body, but which dis- appeared in a few days, causing no permanent injury, is not guilty of assault and battery where such punishment was inflicted in good faith for disobedience of the rules of school.*' § 198. Parents' chastisement. — It is a good defense that the bat- tery was merely the chastisement of a child by its parent, the correct- ing of an apprentice or scholar by the master, or the punishment of a criminal by the proper otBcer, or the keepers of alms-houses and asylums for the poor ; provided, the chastisement be moderate in man- ner, the instrument and the quantity of it, or that the criminal bei punished in the manner appointed by law.** § 199. Owner recovering property. — ^A person who has been unlaw- fully deprived of the possession of his property, may use all reasonable, and necessary force to recapture it without legal process, and not be, guilty of an offense.°° The owner of property may resist an officer who attempts to seize it as the property of a third person, and may use such force as is necessary to prevent the ofBcer taking it.°^ "Watson V. S., 83 Ala. 60, 3 So. " S. v. Neff, 58 Ind. 516, 2 Am. R. 441; S. V. Stalcup, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 30. 177, citing S. v. Hull, 34 Conn. 132; "Dowlen v. S., 14 Tex. App. 61; Forde v. Skinner, 4 C. & P. 494; Anderson v. S., 40 Tenn. 455; Danen- Dean v. S., 89 Ala. 46, 8 So. 38; Boyd hoffer V. S., 69 Ind. 295, 35 Am. v. S., 88 Ala. 169, 7 So. 268. See Hln, R. 216; Atterberry v. S., 33 Tex. kle v. S., 127 Ind. 490, 26 N. E. 777, Cr. 88, 25 S. W. 125; S. v. Staf- holding the punishment unreason- ford, 113 N. C. 635, 18 S. E. 256; able. Marlsbary v. S., 10 Ind. App. 21, 37 " S. v. Dooley, 121 Mo. 591, 26 S. N. E. 558; S. v. Pendergrass, 19 N. W. 558; Carter v. Sutherland, 52 C. 365, 31 Am. D. 416; Thomason Mich. 597, 18 N. W. 375; Com. v. v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 43 S. W. 1013. Lynn, 123 Mass. 218. See Kunkle v. "S. V. Pendergrass, 19 N. C. 365, S., 32 Ind. 220; Cox v. S. (Tex. 31 Am. D. 416; Vanvactor v. S., Cr. Ap.), 34 S. W. 754; S. v. Austin, 113 Ind. 276, 15 N. E. 341. See 123 N. C. 749, 31 S. E. 731. "Whitley v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 172, "Wentworth v. P., 5 111. 551; 25 S. W. 1072. Smith v. S., 105 Ala. 136, 17 So. 107; S. v. Johnson, 12 Ala. 840, 64 hughes' criminal law. § 20O § 200. Semoving trespasser. — Where a trespasser on the premises of another, when requested to leave, defiantly stands his ground, h& may be removed by such physical force only as is necessary to remove him. And if the trespasser is armed with a deadly weapon, physical force may at once be used to remove him without resorting to gentle means.'^ § 201. Self-defense. — If a person is assaulted in such a manner as to excite in him a reasonable belief that he is in danger of losing his life or of receiving great bodily harm, he may use such force in repel- ling the attack as appears to him to be reasonably necessary in defense- of his person.^* But if the defendant himself provoked and brought on the difficulty, he can not invoke the doctrine of self-defense on a charge of assault with intent to murder.^* Article III. Indictment. § 202. Statutory words, sufficient. — Aii indictment is sufficient if it describes the ofEense substantially in the language of the statute. It must enumerate and charge all the substantial elements entering into the statutory description of the offense.^^ § 203. Felonious intent essential. — An indictment for an assault with intent to kill and murder must allege that the assault was made with a "felonious" intent; that the act was done feloniously.^" In drawing an indictment for committing an assault with intent to com- mit a felony, the felony intended should be stated."' 46 Am. D. 283. See S. v. Brlggs, Turner v. S. (Tex. 1900), 55 S. W.. 25 N. C. 357. But see Faris v. S., 53; Campbell v. P., 16 111. 17. See 3 Ohio St. 159; S. v. Richardson, Willis v. S. (Miss.), 27 So. 524; 38 N. H. 208, 75 Am. D. 173; P. v. Montgomery v. Com. (Va.), 36 S. Cooper, 13 Wend. 379. E. 371. "^S. V. Taylor, 82 N. C. 554; S. v. "Scoggins v. S., 120 Ala. 369, 25 Burke, 82 N. C. 551; S. v. Wood- So. 180. See "Defenses." ward, 50 N. H. 527; Long v. P., 102 '"Cranor v. S., 39 Ind. 64; S. v. 111. 331; P. V. Foss, 80 Mich. 559, 45 Seamons, 1 Greene (Iowa) 418; N. W. 480, 20 Am. St. 532; S. v. S. v. Kinder, 109 Ind. 226, 9 N. E. Lazarus, 1 Mill Const. (S. C.) 34; S. 917; Parker v. S., 118 Ind. 328, 20- V. Steele, 106 N. C. 766, 11 S. E. 478, N. E. 833. See S. v. Clayton, 100 19 Am. St. 573; S. v. Montgomery, Mo. 516, 13 S. W. 819, 18 Am. St> 65 Iowa 483, 22 N. W. 639. See S. 565; Ex parte Mitchell, 70 Cal. V. Kaiser, 78 Mo. App. 575; S. v. 1, 11 Pac. 488; P. v. Turner, 65 Cal. Lockwood, 1 Pen. (Del.) 76, 39 Atl. 540, 4 Pac. 553. 589; S. v. Howell, 21 Mont. 165, 53 "Ervington v. P., 181 111. 408, 54 Pac. 314. N E 981 "'Barr v. S., 45 Neb. 458, 63 N. W. "Davis" v. S., 35 Fla. 614, 17 So. 856. See P. v. Pearl, 76 Mich. 207, 565; S. v. Hailstock, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 42 N. W. 1109, 15 Am. St. 304; 257. § 204 ASSAULTS. 55 § 204. Alleging assault. — ^Under a statute which provides that "whosoever shall unlawfully assault or threaten another, or shall unlawfully strike or wound another," an indictment alleging that the defendant "did willfully and maliciously make an assault" upon a person named, "and did unlawfully strike, beat and wound him," is sufficient.^* § 205. Assault and battery included. — The indictment alleging- that the defendant committed "an assault and battery with intent to kill" a person named, charges only an assault and battery; the words "with intent to kill" being mere surplusage.^' § 206. Describing weapon. — Where the pleader averred that the assault was made with a certain instrument (naming it), and averred the instrument to be a deadly weapon, it was held sufficient without any other description of the weapon."" § 207. Alleging manner or means. — In assault with intent to mur- der, the indictment need not allege the manner or means with any particularity. Intent is the gist of the offense.'^ § 208. Assault with weapon. — On a charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to da bodily injury, the indictment must allege either that "no considerable provocation appeared," or that "the cir- cumstances of the assault showed an abandoned and malignant heart," being essential elements constituting the offense, or both expressions may be alleged in the same count."^ § 209. Assault with weapon, included. — Not all indictments charg- ing assault with intent to commit murder contain within themselves ^Hodgkins v. S., 36 Neb. 160, 54 '^ Hamilton v. P., 113 111. 34; N. W. 86. ConoUy v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 474; ™ Shepherd v. S., 54 Ind. 25; Dunn v. P., 158 111. 589, 42 N. E. Sweetser v. S., 4 Blackf. 528; Harris 47; P. v. Congleton, 44 Cal. 92; S. v. V. S., 54 Ind. 2; P. v. Parker, 69 Tidwell, 43 Ark. 71; S. v. Phelan, Hun 130, 23 N. Y. Supp. 704. 65 Mo. 547; Baker v. S., 134 -«° Allen v. P., 82 111. 612; S. v. Ind. 657, 34 N. E. 441; Ash v. S., 56 Seamons, 1 Greene (Iowa) 418; S. v. Ga. 583; P. v. Savercool, 81 Cal. Shields, 110 N. C. 497, 14 S. E. 779; 650, 22 Pac. 856; Mathis v. S., Z9 P. V. Congleton, 44 Cal. 92; Philpot Tex. Cr. 549, 47 S. W. 464. V. Com., 86 Ky. 595, 6 S. "W. 455: '^^ Baker v. P., 49 111. 308; S. v. Wilson V. Com., 3 Bush (Ky.) 105. Townsend, 7 Wash. 462, 35 Pac. 367. Contra, see S. v. Russell, 91 N. C. See Smith v. S. (Neb. 1899), 78 N. 624. W. 1059; P. v. Fairbanks, 7 Utah 3, 56 hughes' criminal law. § 210 assaults with deadly weapons with intent to inflict bodily injury. But where the indictment for an assault to commit murder names the deadly weapon, such as an ax or a knife, then the crime of an assault with a deadly weapon is included in the indictment."' On an indict- ment for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, a convic- iion may be had for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to inflict bodily injury."* § 210. Assault and battery included. — An assault and battery may be included in a charge of assault with a deadly weapon if a beating be alleged, and a conviction for the assault or assault and battery may be had before a justice of the peace — on complaint for the higher charge.*' § 211. Assault and battery Included. — On a charge of assault and battery with intent to commit murder, the accused may be convicted of assault and battery with intent to commit murder in the second degree or voluntary manslaughter, or of assault and battery alone, if warranted by the evidence."" On an indictment for assault with intent to murder, there may be a conviction of an assault simply. But on an indictment for murder, there can not be a conviction of an as- sault with intent to murder, and vice versa."^ § 212. Assault to commit injury. — Under an indictment with in- tent to commit murder or mayhem, the defendant can not be convicted of an assault with intent to commit bodily injury."' An assault with intent to commit a great bodily injury is included in an indictment for murder, and a verdict of such an assault has been sustained.'* § 213. Assault and battery, not included. — "Assault and battery" is not included in an "assault with a deadly weapon with intent to 24 Pac. 538. Contra, P. v. Nugent, Barnett v. S., 22 Ind. App. 599, 4 Cal. 341. 54 N. B. 414. " Beckwith v. P., 26 111. 500. »' Behymer v. S., 95 Ind. 143. "Beckwlth V. P., 26 111. 500; Barll »' 1 Ros. Cr. Ev. 124, citing T. P., 73 111. 330; S. v. Robey, 8 Nev. Hunter v. Com., 79 Pa. St. 503; 312, 1 Green C. R. 675; S. v. John- Bryant v. S., 41 Ark. 359; Kennedy son, 3 N. Dak. 150, 54 N. W. 547; v. P., 122 111. 649, 13 N. B. 213. P. V. Congleton, 44 Cal. 92. "Carpenter v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) "Severln v. P., 37 111. 414; Ter. v. 197; 1 Ros. Cr. Bv. 125. Dooley, 4 Mont. 295, 1 Pac. 747; " S. v. Parker, 66 Iowa 586, 6 Sweeden v. S., 19 Ark. 205. See Am. C. R. 341, 24 N. W. 225. § 214 ASSAULTS. 67 commit bodily injury," they being two distinct offenses.'" A riot and an assault and battery are two distinct oilenses; the facts which will constitute the latter will not establish the former. Eiot does not in- clude assault and battery.''^ No conviction can be had for an offense which includes some ingredient which is not necessarily included in the charge set forth in the indictment.'^ § 214. Intent to commit manslaughter. — On a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, to convict defendant of assault with intent to commit manslaughter is a contradiction of the terms, be- cause there is no deliberation or premeditation in manslaughter, as in murder.'* §215. Charging aggravated assault. — The indictment alleging' that the defendant "did unlawfully make an aggravated assault and battery on the person of," a person named, is defective in charging an aggravated assault and battery. It should further allege the statu- tory description of the aggravated assault, such as that a serious bodily injury was inflicted.'* Under the statute, an assault "com- mitted by an adult made upon the person of a female" is an aggra- vated assault. An indictment charging an offense under this statute should allege by proper averments that the assault was committed by an adult made upon the person of a female.'" § 218. Assault to injure. — An indictment alleging that the defend- ant made an assault upon a person named, with deadly weapons, "with intent then and there unlawfully and feloniously to beat, strike, wound and bruise," and did inflict upon the person named "a great "Moore v. P., 26 111. App. 138. "Marshall v. S., 13 Tex. App. 492; "Ferguson v. P., 90 111. 510; Green- S. v. Pierce, 26 Tex. 114; Griffin v. ■wood v. S., 64 Ind. 250, 3 Am. C. R. S., 12 Tex. App. 423. See S. v. 156; 2.McClain Or. L., § 1001. Hunter, 44 Tex. 94; S. v. Cass, 41 "Carpenter v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) Tex. 552; Williamson v. S., 5 Tex. 197; Beekwith v. P., 26 111. 500; App. 485; Key v. S., 12 Tex. App. Young V. P., 6 111. App. 434; S. v. 506; Flynn v. S., 8 Tex. App. 368; . Largent, 9 Wash. 691, 38 Pao. 751. Meier v. S., 10 Tex. App. 39. "Moore v. P., 146 111. 600, 35 N. "Collins v. S., 5 Tex. App. 38; E. 166; P. v. Lilley, 43 Mich. 521, Kemp v. S., 25 Tex. App. 589, 8 S. Wi 5 N. W. 982; Bedell v. S., 50' Miss. 804; Blackburn v. S., 3 Tex. 153; 492. See Wilson v. S., 53 Ga. 205. Robinson v. S., 25 Tex. App. Ill, Contra, S. v. McGuire, 87 Iowa 142, 7 S. W. 521; Webb v. S., 36 Tex. 54 N. W. 202; S. v. Butman, 42 N. Cr. 41, 35 S. W. 380. H. 490; Smith v. S., 83 Ala. 26, 3 So. 551. 58 hughes' criminal law. § 217 bodily injury," is not sufficient statement of an assault "with the: intention to inflict a great bodily injury."'® § 217. Deadly weapon. — All kinds of "daggers, bowie-knives, pon- iards, butcher-knives, dirk-knives and other weapons with which dan- gerous cuts or thrusts can be inflicted" are by statute made deadly weapons. An indictment alleging the making of an assault with a certain "deadly weapon, to wit: a knife," is bad, in that it does not describe the knife.'' § 218. Not duplicity. — A man may be indicted for the battery of two or more persons, in the same count, where done by one and the same act.'* A trial and conviction for assault and battery is not a bar to riot growing out of the same transaction, or of assault with a deadly weapon.'* Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 219. Proving intent. — In assault with intent to murder, the in- tent must be proved, but it may be inferred from facts and circum- stances in evidence, and weapon used.*" § 220. Evidence of other assaults. — Evidence of another and differ- ent assault upon a different person on a different occasion than that charged in the indictment is not competent.*^ But evidence of a previ- ous assault or difficulty with the person assaulted is competent as tend- ing to show malice of the defendant against such person.*^ ™S. V. Clark, 80 Iowa 517, 45 N. S. y. Shippey, 10 Minn. 224; Whar. W. 910; S. V. Harrison, 82 Iowa 716, Cr. Bv., § 764. See Friederich v. P., 47 N. W. 777. 147 111. 315, 35 N. B. 472; S. v. Gillett, "Ter. V. Armijo, 7 N. M. 571, 37 56 Iowa 459, 9 N. W.'362; S. v. God- Pac. 1117. See S. v. Porter, 101 N. C. fray, 17 Or. 300, 20 Pac. 625, 11 Am. 713, 7 S. E. 902. See S. v. Henn, St. 830; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 354, 39 Minn. 476, 40 N. W. 572. citing S. v. Dlckerson, 98 N. C. 708, "Wharton Cr. PI. & Pr., § 254. 3 S. E. 687; P. v. Smith, 106 Mieh. See Greenwood v. S., 64 Ind. 250, 431, 64 N. W. 200; P. v. Conley, 106 3 Am. C. R. 156. Mich. 424, 64 N. W. 325; P. v. Miller, '"Freeland v. P., 16 111. 380; Sev- 91 Mich. 639, 52 N. W. 65. erin v. P., 37 111. 414, 423. " P. v. Gibbs, 93 N. Y. 470, 1 N. Y. *> Conn V. P., 116 111. 458, 6 N. B. Cr. R. 472. 463; Dunaway v. P., 110 111. 333; »^ Bills v. S., 120 Ala. 333, 25 So. 1; Perry v. P., 14 111. 496; Vander- Underbill Cr. Bv., § 357, citing S. v. mark v. P., 47 111. 122; Murphy v. Henn, 39 Minn. 476, 40 N. W. 572; P., 37 111. 447; Davison v. P., 90 111. P. v. Deitz, 86 Mich. 419, 49 N. W. 222; S. v. Decklotts, 19 Iowa 447; 296. §221 ASSAULTS. 59 § 221. Extent of injury. — On a charge of an assault with intent to kill and murder, it is competent to show in evidence the nature and extent of the injury received by the prosecuting witness as tending to prove criminal intent.*^ § 222. Self-defense, degree of proof. — On a charge of assault and battery where the defense is self-defense, the defendant is not required to show self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.'* § 223. Variance. — On a charge of assault on two person^ at the same time, proof of assault on one of them will support the charge.*^ § 224. Variance — ^Knif e — ^Razor. — The indictment in alleging the assault with a razor, is substantially proved if the evidence be that a knife was used ; the two instruments make the same kind of wound.'" § 225. Variance — ^Weapon — Fists. — It is clear that if an indict- ment charges an assault and battery with a weapon, as with a gun. »= Williams v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1427, 43 S. W. 455; S. v. Grant, 144 Mo. 56, 45 S. W. 1102. " S. v. Dunn, 22 Wash. 67, 60 Pac. 49. The evidence in the following cases held sufficient to sustain con- victions: Aneals v. P., 134 111. 401, 25 N. B. 1022; Dunn v. P., 158 111. 589, 42 N. E. 47; Meyer v. P., 156 111. 127, 40 N. B. 490; Rippetoe v. P., 172 111. 173, 50 N. B. 166 (rob- bery case) ; Parrish v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 583, 25 S. W. 420; Boyd v. S., 88 Ala. 169, 7 So. 268, 16 Am. St. 31; P. v. Bracco, 69 Hun 206, 23 N. Y. Supp. 505; Isbell v. S., 93 Ga. 194, 18 S. B. 651; P. v. Smith, 106 Mich. 431, 64 N. W. 200; Johnson v. S., 7 Tex. App. 210; Thompson v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 30 S. W. 667; Tracy v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 24 S. W. 898; P. v. Spriggs, 58 Hun 603, 11 N. Y. Supp. 433; Robertson v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 29 S. W. 478; Murphey v. S., 43 Neb. 34, 61 N. W. 491; P. v. Townsend, 120 Mich. 661, 79 N. W. 901; Smith V. S., 58 Neb. 531, 78 N. W. 1059; P. V. Hannigan, 58 N. Y. Supp. 703; Malone v. S., 77 Miss. 812, 26 So. 968; P. v. Kalunki (Mich. 1900), 81 N. W. 923; P. v. Hawkins, 127 Cal. 372, 59 Pac. 697. See P. v. Tompkins, 121 Mich 431, 80 N. W. 126: Jay v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap. 1900). 55 S. W. 335; Bstes v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 44 S. W. 838. But not suffi- cient In the following: White v. P., 93 111. 473; Garrity v. P., 70 111. 83; Maxwell v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 420, 1 Green C. R. 696; Vanvactor v. S., 113 Ind. 276, 15 N. E. 341, 3 Am. St. 645; Priest v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 34 S. W. 611; Franklin v. S., 27 Tex. App. 136, 11 S. W. 35; Roberts v. S., 32 Neb. 251, 49 N. W. 361; Bawcom V. S., 27 Tex. App. 620, 11 S. W. 639; Leonard v. S., 27 Tex. App. 186, 11 S. W. 112; Wilson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 64, 29 S. W. 41; Berkeley v. Com., 88 Va. 1017, 14 S. B. 916; Waller v. Com., 84 Va. 492, 5 S. E. 364; Lee v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 519, 31 S. W. 667; Hawes v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 44 S. W. 1094. ^Com. V. O'Brien, 107 Mass. 208. But see S. v. McClintock, 8 Iowa 203. ""Hull V. S., 79 Ala. 33; S. v. Smith, 32 Me. 369; Hernandez v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 271, 22 S. W. 972. 60 hughes' criminal law. § 226 and the evidence shows that the offense was committed without a weapon, as with the hand or fist, there is a fatal variance.'^ § 226. Variance— Club — ^Pistol. — Under the statute for assault with a dangerous weapon, the indictment alleged the assault was ■ made with "knives and clubs." The proof was that the assault was made with a pistol. Held a variance.'* § 227. Variance — Different person. — An indictment for shooting at A. with intent to kill him, is not supported by evidence of shooting at B. wifh intent to kill him. There is a fatal variance.'* § 228. Verdict. — The, information charged that the defendaiit, with force and arms, being armed with a dangerous weapon, made an as- sault with intent to kill and murder. The verdict of the jury was: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of an assault to do great bodily harm, but not guilty of an assault with intent to commit the crime of murder." The verdict amounts to simple assault only, be- cause it omits an essential element of the higher grade of crime, viz : "being armed with a dangerous weapon."*" "Walker v. S., 73 Ala. 18, citing 745; Herald v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 1 East P. C. 341; Filkins v. P., 69 409, 35 S. W. 670. N. Y. 101, 25 Am. R. 143; 1 Bish. "Barcus v. S., 49 Miss. 17, 1 Am. Cr. Proc, §§ 485, 486. When not a C. R. 249. variance: Smith v. S., 123 Ala. 64, 26 " Sullivan v. S., 44 Wis. 595, 3 Am. So. 641. C. R. 5, citing Carpenter v. P., i "S. T. Braxton, 47 La, 158, 16 So. Scam. (111.) 198; P. v. Murat, 45 Cal. 281; Wilson v. P., 24 Mich. 410, CHAPTEE III. ABDUCTION, Aet. I. Befinition and Elements, §§ 339-23'}' II. Matters of Defense, §§ 238-343 III. Indictment, §§ 244r-249 IV. Evidence; Witnesses, §§ 250-265 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 229. Gravamen of the offense. — The gravamen of the offense is the purpose or intent with which the enticing and abduction is done, and hence the offense, if committed at all, is complete the moment the female is removed beyond the power and control of her parents or of others having lawful charge of her, whether illicit intercourse ever takes place or not.^ § 230. Committed by threats or fraud. — The crime of abduction may be committed by threats, menaces or fraud, or by putting the woman in fear, as well as by physical force.* § 231. Detaining against her will. — The statute of Kentucky pro- vides that whoever "detains any woman against her will with intent to have carnal knowledge with her," shall be punished. The detention of the woman against her will and with a purpose to carnally know her, •Henderson v. P., 124 111. 614, 17 1149; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 339; S. N. E. 68; S. v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, v. Jobnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 19 S. W. 980. See BunfiU v. P., 154 463, 9 Am. C. R. 17; Berger v. P., 111. 647, 39 N. B. 565; P. v. Stott, 4 86 N. Y. 369; S. v. Bussey, 58 Kan. N. Y. Cr. K. 306; Com. v. Kani- 679, 50 Pac. 891. per, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 276; S. v. Rich- » Moody v. P., 20 111. 319. See ardson, 117 Mo. 586, 23 S. W. 769; Beyer v. P., 86 N. Y. 369. S. V. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. (61) 62 hughes' criminal law. § 232 constitutes the gravamen of the offense, and it is immaterial whether persuasion or force or other means be used to accomplish the purpose.* § 232. "Taking away" female. — It must appear that the defend- ant took the girl away for the purpose of prostitution and concubinage before a conviction can be sustained. If the girl go of her own free will and take lodgings with the defendant, he will not be guilty." § 233. Solicitations and inducements. — That the female was in- duced to leave home and meet the defendant by his solicitations and inducements, comes within the meaning of the term "take away.'" § 234. Taking from parent or guardian. — The statute contemplates that there may be a legal charge of the female in one who is neither parent nor guardian, but who, under the facts of the case, stands ia the place of one or the other. And it makes no difference whether he was legally appointed such guardian or not.' § 235. Prostitution. — "Prostitution, within the meaning of the law of abduction, is the act or practice of prostituting or offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men for hire ; common lewdness of a female."* Prostitution means common indiscriminate illicit intercourse — and not with one man only.® § 236. "Conversation," meaning. — The word "conversation," as used in a statute deiining the offense of abduction, means the manner of living, habit or conduct.^" *Payner v. Com. (Ky.), 19 S. W. female, is an element of the offense, 927. see the following cases: Payner v. »S. V. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. Com. (Ky.), 19 S. W. 927; Higgins 980. See P. v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, v. Com., 94 Ky. 54, 21 S. W. 231. 3 N. B. 790, 53 Am. R. 326; 'P. v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. Malone v. Com., 91 Ky. 307, 15 S. W. W. 487; S. v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. See 856. S. V. Angel, 42 Kan. 216, 21 Pac. "S. v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 1075; S. v. Round, 82 Mo. 679. S. W. 463, 9 Am. C. R. 15, citing » BunfiU v. P., 154 111. 647, 39 N. B. Slocum V. P., 90 111. 274; P. v. Mar- 565. shall, 59 Cal. 386; P. v. Demousset, "Osborn v. S., 52 Ind. 526, 1 Am. 71 Cal. 611, 12 Pac. 788; S. v. Jami- C. R. 25; Miller v. S., 121 Ind. 294, son, 38 Minn. 21, 35 N. W. 712; S. v. 23 N. E. 94; S. v. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24; Stone, 106 Mo. 1, 16 S. W. 890. See S. v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447; Com. v. Malone v. Com., 91 Ky. 307, 15 S. Cook, 12 Met. 93; P. v. Demousset, W. 856; S. v. Chisenhall, 106 N. C. 71 Cal. 611, 7 Am. C. R. 1, 12 Pac. 676, 11 S. B. 518; P. v. Seeley, 37 788; S. v. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Hun (N. Y.) 190; P. v. Cook, Atl. 216. 61 Cal. 478; Underhill Cr. Bv., "Bradshaw v. P., 153 111. 160, 38 § 339. Where the taking and de- N. B. 652. talning "against the .will" of the §237 ABDUCTION. 63 § 237. Kept mistress. — If a single woman consents and actually •commences cohabiting with a man generally, without limit as to dura- tion of time of illicit intercourse, she becomes his concubine, or his "kept mistress."^^ Article II. Matters of Defense. § 238. Belief as to age. — It is no defense that the defendant be- lieved the female was not within the age of statutory prohibition at the time ; that he believed she was over eighteen years old, or that she told him she was over eighteen.^^ § 239. Female consenting. — The fact that the girl gave her consent to be taken away by the defendant and consented to have sexual inter- course with him, is no defense. ^^ § 240. Enticing for intercourse only. — Enticing away solely for the purpose of having illicit intercourse is not an offense. Intention to reduce the female to the condition of a common prostitute or con- cubinage must appear.^* § 241. Meeting for intercourse only. — Meeting a woman within a few rods of her home to have illicit intercourse with her, after which she returns home to her parents, is clearly not within the scope of the statute.^" "Henderson v. P., 124 111. 616, 17 890; Tucker v. S., 76 Tenn. 633; N. E. 68, 7 Am. St. 391. See S. Thweatt v. S., 74 Ga. 821; V. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; S. v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S.' W. S. V. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 1149; Scruggs v. S., 90 Tenn. 81, 891; South v. S., 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. 15 S. W. 1074; Underbill Cr. Ev., W. 210. § 340. Contra, Mason v. S., 29 Tex. "Reg. V.' Prince, 1 Am. C. R. 1; App. 24, 14 S. W. 71. S. V. Rubl, 8 Iowa 447; S. v. "Slocum v. P., 90 111. 274; Hen- Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 463, derson v. P., 124 111. 615, 17 N. E. fl Am. C. R. 16, citing Lawrence v. 68; S. v. Wilkinson, 121 Mo. 485, 26 Com., 30 Gratt. 845; S. v. Newton, S. W. 366; Miller v. S., 121 Ind. 44 Iowa 45; Riley v. S. (Miss.), 18 294, 23 N. E. 94; Osborn v. S., 52 So. 117; Bish. Stat. Crimes, § 490; Ind. 526; S. v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447; S. P. V. Dolan, 96 Cal. 315, 31 Pac. 107. v. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24, 89 Am. D. 716; See Mason v. S., 29 Tex. App. 24, 14 Com. v. Cook, 53 Mass. 93; Carpen- S. W. 71; Bradshaw v. P., 153 ter v. P., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; Hay- Ill. 156, 38 N. B. 652. Contra, Brown good v. S., 98 Ala. 61, 13 So. 325; v. S., 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186. See Underbill Cr. Ev., § 343. ITnderhill Cr. Ev., § 342. "Slocum v. P., 90 111. 276; S. v. " S. V. Stone, 106 Mo. 1, 16 S. W. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Atl. 216; S. 64 hughes' criminal law. § 242 § 242. Mere sexuaj intercourse. — Mere sexual intercourse between the parties is not of itself sufficient to prove that the accused intended to take the female away.^" § 243. Marriage is defense. — The defendant having consummated a marriage good by the common law with the girl and made her his wife, he can not be guilty of taking her away from her mother for the purpose of concubinage, although the girl was not old enough to contract marriage under the statute, notwithstanding her parelits refused consent.^^ Aetiole III. Indictment. § 244. Indictment defective. — An indictment charging abduction "for the purpose of having illicit sexual intercourse" with the female, and not "for the purpose of prostitution," as defined by statute, is de- fective and charges no offense.^' § 245. "Willfully or feloniously." — ^An indictment for abduction need not allege that the female was maliciously, willfully or felon- iously taken or detained by the defendant under a statute providing that "whoever shall unlawfully take or detain any woman against her will," etc., shall be confined in the penitentiary.^' § 246. Against her will. — The indictment failing to allege all the essential elements of the crime as defined by statute, is defective, as omitting to allege the statutory words "against her will" or "detained against her will."^" Vj McCrum, 38 Minn. 154, 36 N. W. consent, see Cochran v. S., 91 Ga. 102. See Haygood v. S., 98 Ala. 61, 763, 18 S. E. 16. 13 So. 325. Contra, see P. v. Bristol, " Osborn v. S., 52 Ind. 526, 1 Am. 23 Mich. 118; P. v. Cummons, 56 C. R. 26; S. v. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24; S. Mich. 544, 23 N. W. 215. v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. " S. v. Jamison, 38 Minn. 21, 35 572. See Miller v. S., 121 Ind. 294, N. W. 712. See S. v. Johnson, 115 23 N. E. 94; S. v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447; Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 463. See also Com. v. Cook, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 93. Haygood v. S., 98 Ala. 61, 13 So. " Higgins v. Com., 94 Ky. 54, 21 S. 325; S. V. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 231. W. 980. "» Wilder v. Com., 81 Ky. 591; " S. V. Bittick, 103 Mo. 183, 15 S. Krambiel v. Com., 8 Ky. L. 6U5, 2 S. W. 325. As to inducing a girl four- W. 555; Jones v. S., 84 Tenn. 466. teen years old to leave her parents. See S. v. O'Bannon, 1 Bailey (S. C.) and marrying her without their 144. '^ 247 ABDUCTION. 65 § 247. -Duplicity. — Charging in an information that the female was taken away by the defendant for the purpose of prostitution and concubinage is bad for duplicity. Concubinage is a distinct offense from prostitution.^^ § 248. Joining kidnapping with abduction. — Counts of kidnapping may be joined with counts of abduction in the same indictment, the offense being of the same nature. ^^ § 249. Statutory words sufficient. — ^Under a statute pFoviiiing 'that whoever "takes a female under the age of sixteen years for the purpose of having sexual intercourse" with her, an indictment setting out that the defendant "did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously 'take*' a certain girl, naming her, into a certain house, "for the purpose "of sexual intercourse with him, she, the said girl, being then and there an unmarried female under the age of sixteen years, to wit : the age of ten years," is sufficient.^^ Article IV. Evidence ; Witnesses. § 250. Chaste life presumed. — The presumption of law is, the pre- vious life and conversation of the female were chaste, and the onvs is upon the defendant to show otherwise. The prosecution is ndt: re- quired to offer evidence in the first instance on the subject of chafitity.''* § 251. "Chaste life and conversation." — There is no practical dif- erence in the meaning of the statutory words, "a chaste life and con- versation," and "a chaste life and previous character/"^ "S. V. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 25, Pac. 1110; S. v. Overstreet, 43 Pac. 899, 5 Am. C. R. 4. See S. v. Kan. 299, 23 Pac. 572. Terrill, 76 Iowa 149, 40 N. W. 128. "Bradshaw v. P., 153- 111. 159, 38 Contra, P. v. Parshall, 6 Park. C. R. N. E. 652; Slocum v. P., 90 III. 274; (N. Y.) 129. P; V. Brewer, 27 Mich. 138; Andre »= Mason v. S., 29 Tex. App. 24, 14 v. S., 5 Iowa 389; S. v. Higdon, 32; S. W. 71. Iowa 264; P. v. McArdle, 5 Park. C. ='S. V. Keith, 47 Minn. 559, 50 R. (N. Y.) 180. Contra, Com. v. N. W. 691. Indictment held suffi- Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224; Under- cient: Nichols v. S., 127 Ind. 406, 26 hill Cr. Ev., § 341. N. E. 839; P. v. Fowler, 88 Cal. 136, =»Bradshaw v. P., 153 111. 160, 3& N. B. 652. HUQHBS' 0. L.— 5 66 hughes' criminal law. § 252 § 252. Previous illicit relations. — It is competent to prove previous illicit relations and also the subsequent conduct of the parties as tend- ing to show the intent of the defendant in what he did.^° § 253. Eeputation of house. — The general reputation of the house to which the female was taken by the accused, is competent as tending to show his intention.^' § 254. IJnchastity — Specific acts. — Evidence of specific acts of un- ehastity of the woman with other men is incompetent, and is no de- fense, under the statute, on a charge of detaining a woman with intent to carnally know her.^* ^ 255. Accomplice. — Where the evidence tended to show that the 'defendant had an accomplice in abducting a female, it is competent to show that the accomplice suggested that they all sleep together.^' § 258. Lewd women — Defense. — The defendant is entitled to show in evidence that he met the woman whom he is charged with abduct- ing on a public fair ground, where there were lewd women plying their trade, and that he was informed that she was a lewd woman.^" § 257. Female unchaste. — The female must possess actual personal virtue and chaste life and conversation, as distinguished from good reputation, and this must be averred; and evidence of bad reputation of the female may be shown. It is competent to show that she was an inmate of a bawdy house.'^ Unehastity of the female can not be .shown as a defense under the California statute, that element not being mentioned in the statute.^^ ™P. V. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. 3 Cr. L. Mag. 748; Carpenter v. P., "W. 487. See S. v. Jolinson, 115 Mo. 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; Scruggs v. S., 480, 22 S. W. 463; S. v. Overstreet, 90 Tenn. 81, 15 S. W. 1074; Brown v. 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. 572; S.V.Gibson, S., 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186; Jenkins v. 108 Mo. 575, 18 S. W. 1109. S., 83 Tenn. 674. Contra, S. v. Jolin- " S. V. Chisenhall, 106 N. C. 676, son, 115 Mo. 481, 22 S. W. 46?, cit- 11 S. B. 518. ing P. v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611, 12 ^'Cargill V. Com., 93 Ky. 578, 20 S. Pac. 788; P. v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, W. 782. 9 N. W. 487. Contra, S. v. Bobbst, " P. V. Brown, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1111, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149, 10 Am. 71 Hun 601. C. R. 7. "^ Beaven v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 246, '^ P. v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611, 12 50 S. W. 968. Pac. 788, 7 Am. C. R. 1. See also S. " Slocum V. P., 90 111. 274; Lyons v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; V. S., 52 Ind. 426, 1 Am. C. R. 28; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 341; Scrugga Com. V. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224, v. S., 90 Tenn. 81, 15 S. W. 1074. § 258 ABDUCTION. 67 § 258. Evidence of unchastity. — The defendant offered to prove acts of illicit intercourse on the part of the prosecuting witness prior to the alleged abduction; but the court rejected the evidence. Held error. A single act of illicit connection is competent on the question •of previous chaste character.^^ § 259. TJncliastity after abduction. — On a charge of abducting an unmarried female of previous chaste character, evidence of her un- chastity with other men after the abduction is not competent.^* § 260. Unchastity of relative. — Evidence that the girl's mother and sister were lewd women and had given birth to illegitimate children, is not competent.^" § 261. Correspondence. — ^Ijetters written between the parties are ■competent as showing the relation existing between them prior to the alleged abduction. ^^ Letters written by the defendant, although not received by the female, are competent as showing his motive in paying attention to her.^^ § 262. Corroborating female's testimony. — Under a statute forbid- ding a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of the female .alleged to have been abducted, her testimony must be corroborated upon every material element necessary to constitute the crime •charged.^* § 263. Evidence sufficient. — The facts are given in detail in each «f the following cases and held sufficient to sustain a conviction." " Lyons v. S., 52 Ind. 426, 1 Am. »' S. v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 €. R. 28, citing Bish. Stat. Pac. 572. Crimes, § 639; Carpenter v. P., 8 "'S. v. Keith, 47 Minn. 559, 50 N. Barb. 603; Kenyon v. P., 26 N. Y. W. 691; P. v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 203; S. V. Shean, 32 Iowa 88. See 3 N. E. 790, 53 Am. R. 236. See P. Beaven v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 246, 30 v. Brandt, 14 N. Y. St. 419. S. W. 968; South v. S., 97 Tenn. 496, =» Schnicker v. P., 88 N. Y. 192; 37 S. W. 210. P. V. Cummons, 56 Mich. 544, 23 N. "Scruggs V. S., 90 Tenn. 81, 15 W. 215; P. v. Bristol, 23 Mich. 118; S. W. 1074. S. V. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. "Scruggs v. S., 90 Tenn. 81, 15 572; Ex parte Estrado, 88 Cal. 316, S. W. 1074; Brown v. S., 72 Md. 468, 26 Pac. 209; S. v. Chisenhall, 106 N. 20 Atl. 186. C. 676, 11 S. E. 518. See also P. v. "South v. S., 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. Wah Lee Mon, 13 N! Y. Supp. 767; W. 210. Mason v. S., 29 Tex. App. 24, 14 S. W. 71 (not sufficient). 68 hughes' criminal law. § 264 ., § 264. Witness, female competent. — On the trial of an indictment for forcible abduction and marriage of a woman, she may be a wit- ness for the state, for slie is not legally his wife, the contract of mar- riage with her having been obtained by force, and hence having no binding obligation in law.*" If the woman was taken away against her will and afterward married and defiled, and though possibly the marriage or defilement might be by her subsequent consent, yet this is a felony ; and the woman thus taken away and married may be sworn and give evidence against the offender, though he is her husband de facto.*^ § 265. Proving female's age. — The female alleged to be under the age of consent, is a competent witness to testify to her age, though her knowledge is based solely on information from her parents.** "S. V. Gordon, 46 N. J. L. 432, 4 "Com. v. Stevenson, 142 Mass. Am. C. R. 4, citing 1 Hale P. C. 301; 466, 8 N. E. 341; Cherry v. S., 6S 2 Hawk. P. C., ch. 46, § 78; Wake- Ala. 29; Mason v. S., 29 Tex. App. field's Case, 2 Lewln C. C. 279; Bish- 24, 14 S. W. 71; Bain v. S., 61 Ala. Stat. Crimes, § 623. 75. " 4 Bl. Com. 209; 1 East P. C. 454; 1 Hale P. C. 301, 661. CHAPTEE IV. KIDNAPPING. IAet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 266-268 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 269-274 III. Indictment; Evidence, §§ 275-378 IV. False Imprisonment, §§ 279-284 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 266. Definition. — "The statute defines kidnapping to be the for- cible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman or child from his ■or her own country, and sending or taking him or her into another."^ § 267. Poroe not essential — Threats. — While the letter of the statute requires the employment of force to complete this offense, it must be admitted by all that physical force and violence are not neces- sary to its completion. The crime may be committed by threats and menaces or by fraudulent representations.'' § 268. Against will essential. — Under the statute of Texas defi.n- ing kidnapping, the detention of the person alleged to be kidnapped, must be against his or her consent, though under the age of fifteen: years.' Aeticle II. Matters op Defense. § 269. Parent taking child. — The statute defining the offense of Icidnapping any child can have no application to a father who, as a re- ' Moody v. P., 20 111. 318; 4 Bl. "Castillo v. S., 29 Tex. App. 127, Com; 219. 14 S. W. 1011. 'Moody V. P., 20 111. 318; P. v. DeLeon,' 109 N. Y. 226, 16 N. E. 46. (69) 70 hughes' criminal law. § 270 suit of a quarrel with his wife, took his child away from the posses- sion of its mother.'* Where a child of tender years which had been awarded to the care and custody of its mother in a divorce proceeding,, was taken out of the state with its consent, as well as that of its mother, it was held not to be kidnapping, though taken for the pur- pose of preventing it attending a criminal trial in which it had been subpenaed as a witness.^ § 270. Child's consent immaterial. — A child of tender years will not be regarded as competent to give consent to be taken away, and the offense may be committed though such child gives its consent.' § 271. Persuasion is not inveigling. — To persuade a person to go out of the state on the promise of compensation, when the person making such promise knows that such compensation can not be had, is not to "inveigle" or kidnap such person within the meaning of the statute defining kidnapping.^ § 272. Marrying minor, defense. — The statute of Georgia provides that any person who shall "forcibly, maliciously or fraudulently carry away any child under the age of eighteen years" from the parents of such child without their consent, shall be guilty of kidnapping. The taking away of a girl as young as fourteen years from her parents with- out their consent, for the purpose of marrying her, with her consent,, is not kidnapping, where, under the law, one as young as she may lawfully contract marriage without the consent of her parents.* § 273. Taking "out of county" essential. — To constitute the offense under the statute, it must appear that the defendant took or designed to take the person he is charged with kidnapping "out of the state or county"; merely taking the person against his will to some other place in the county is not sufficient.^ § 274. Person adjudged insane. — After procuring a person in good faith to be adjudged insane, conveying him publicly to an insane * Burns v. Com., 129 Pa. St. 138, ' P. v. Fitzpatrick, 10 N. Y. Supp. 18 Atl. 756; Hunt v. Hunt, 94 Ga. 629. 257, 21 S. E. 515. See In re Marceau, ' Cochran v. S., 91 Ga. 763, 18 S.. 15 N. Y. Cr. 92, 65 N. Y. Supp. 717. E. 16. "John V. S., 6 Wyo. 203, 44 Pac. »Bx parte Miller (Cal.), 24 Pac^ 51. 743. ' S. V. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53; Gravett V. S., 74 Ga. 191. § 276 KIDNAPPING. 71 asylum without using force, is not kidnapping, though it afterward appears that such person was not insane.^" Article III. Indictment; Evidence. § 275. Taking child from parents. — ^Under a statute defining kid- napping of a child as the taking away any child from its "parents or guardian," an indictment is sufficient which charges with proper aver- ments that the child was taken away without the consent of its parents,, without reference to the guardian.^^ § 276. Duplicity — Joining counts. — The offense may be charged in different ways in different counts in the same indictment; as, where the statute defines the offense to be that, "whoever kidnaps or forcibly or ^fraudulently carries off, or decoys from his place of residence, or imprisons or arrests any person with the intention of having such per- son carried away from his place of residence," shall be deemed guilty of kidnapping, the indictment may charge a "forcible carrying away" in one count, and in another count that the person alleged to have been kidnapped was "fraudulently decoyed" from her place of residenee.^^ And under the same statute the taking of si girl away from her home for four or five days and having sexual intercourse with her and then, at her request, taking her home again, does not constitute kid- napping in the absence of any fraud having been practiced upon the girl.^' §277. Exception to be negatived. — Under a statute providing: "Whoever kidnaps or forcibly or fraudulently carries off or decoys from his place of residence, or arrests or imprisons any person with the intention of having such person carried away from his place of residence, unless it be in pursuance of the laws of the state or of the United States, is guilty of kidnapping," an indictment failing to aver that the person alleged to have been kidnapped was not taken in pur- suance of the laws of the state and United States, is fatally defective.^'* And if the indictment fails to allege "with the intention of having "P. v. Camp, 139 N. Y. 87, 34 N. "^Boes v. S., 125 Ind. 205, 25 N. E. E. 755, 66 Hun 531, 21 N. Y. Supp. 218. 741. i^Eberling v. S., 136 Ind. 117, 35 " Pruitt V. S., 102 Ga. 688, 29 S. B. N. E. 1023. 437. "a s. V. Kimmerllng, 124 Ind. 382, 24 N. E. 722. 72 hughes' criminal law. § 278; fiuotk, person carried away from his place of residence," it will be fa- tally defective.^* The word "residence" in the abovCi statute meana. any place where the person alleged to be kidnapped has a right to be." § 278. Motive in making arrest. — It is proper to show in evidence that the defendant, a constable, who arrested a woman, instead of takiJig, her before a justice of the peace, took her to a house of ill- fanaej as tending to prove motive in making the arrest.^* Akticle IV. False Imprisonment. §279. False imprisonment defined. — False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in, confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.^^ § 280. Arrest without cause. — If a person for his own private purposes, acting in bad faith, and without probable cause, procures the arrest of another with criminal process, he is guilty of false im-i prisonment.^* § 281. False imprisonment — ^Unlawful arrest. — ^If criminal prose- cution be instituted for the purpose of coercing another to pay a debt or the surrender of some right claimed, and not for the interest of public justice, or to vindicate the law, and was falsely commenced, the iaet that the prosecutor procured the advice of counsel will not shield him from the consequences of his wrongful act, done, not in good iaith, upon such advice, but with the sinister motive of personal gain." § 282. False imprisonment — ^By threats. — False imprisonment may he committed without actually making an arrest; as by putting a, person in fear by threats of personal violence and thereby preventing liim from moving beyond the bounds in which he is detained or from »S. V. Sutton, 116 Ind. 527, 19 N. ship v. P., 51 111. 298; Brewster v. B. 602. See Com. v. Myers, 146 Pa. P., 183 111. 146. St. 24, 23 Atl. 164. " Slomer v. P., 25 111. 61; 4B1. Com. "Wallace v. S., 147 Ind. 621, 47 218; Com. v. Nlckerson, 5 Allea N. E. 13. (Mass.) 518; Vanderpool v. S., 34 "P. V. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 26 Pae. Ark. 174. 758. "Neufeld v. Rodeminski, 144 111. "Slomer v. P., 25 111. 61; Win- 88, 32 N. B. 913. § 283 KIDNAPPING. 73 going where he wishes without reasonable apprehension of danger to his person.^" § 283. Parents imprisoning child. — The fact that a blind helpless child may be covered with vermin, can afford his parents no excuse for wantonly imprisoning him in a cold, damp cellar without fire in mid-winter. Such cruel treatment of a child by its parents consti- tutes false imprisonment.''^ § 284. False imprisonment — ^Indictment. — ^An indictment which charges that the defendant, with force and arms, did make an assault upon a pers.9n named, then and there unlawfully and injuriously ^n,4 against the will of such person, and without any legal warrant, a,uthor- ity or reasonable or justifiable cause, did then and there, in;ipri§o]ji and ^tain such person for the space of one hour next f ollow^ing tl^e un- lawful arrest of such person, sufficiently states the offense of false im- prisonment at common law.^^ ""Meyer v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 49 » Davies v. S., 72 Wis. 54, 38 N. W. S. W. 600. 722. •^ Fletcher v. P., 52 111. 396. CHAPTER V. RAPE. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 385-297 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 298-306 III. Indictment, §§ 307-323 IV. Evidence, Variance, §§ 324.-360 Article I. Djieinitiok and Elements. § 285. Definition — Elements. — Rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will.^ Penetration of the female, in the sense of having sexual intercourse, is essential to constitute rape, but the least degree of penetration, however slight, is sufiicient; emis- sion is not necessary.^ But such penetration may be proved by cir- cumstantial evidence.' § 286. Asleep, connection when. — If a man gets in bed with a woman while she is asleep and he knows she is asleep, and he has con- nection with her or attempts to do so while in that state, he is guilty of rape in the one case and the attempt in the other.* ^4 Bl. Com. 210; 1 East P. C. v. S., 76 Ga. 623; S. v. Grubb, 55 Kan, 434; Sutton v. P., 145 111. 279, 34 678, 41 Pac. 951; P. v. Courier, 79 N. E. 420; Garrison v. S., 6 Neb. Mich. 366, 44 N. W. 571; Davis v. 274; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 209; Under- S., 43 Tex. 189; S. v. Hargrave, 65 hill Cr. Ev., § 407. N. C. 466. ^Barker v. S., 40 Pla. 178, 24 So. »S. v. Carnagy, 106 Iowa 483, 76 69; P. V. Crowley, 102 N. Y. 234, 6 N. N. W. 805; Wood v. S., 12 Tex. App. B. 384; Hardtke v. S., 67 Wis. 552, 174; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 416. 30 N. W. 723; White v. Com., 96 Ky. * Reg. v. Mayers, 12 Cox C. C. 311, 1 180, 28 S. W. 340; Comstock v. S., 14 Green C. R. 319, and note; Payne Neb. 205, 15 N. W. 355; Bean v. P., v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. App. 202, 49 S. W. 124 111. 576, 583, 16 N. E. 656; Brown 604. (74) § 287 RAPE. 75 § 287. Drugging woman. — To stupefy a woman to insensibility by the use of drugs and while she is in that condition have sexual inter- course with her is rape.** §288. Accomplished by fear or fraud. — If the offense was com- mitted when the woman yielded her consent by fear or duress, ox where a physician falsely pretended that the act done was necessary in a case of medical treatm'fent, it is rape." § 289. Connection with idiot. — If the girl was in such a state of idiocy as to be incapable of expressing either consent or dissent, and the prisoner had connection with her, he is guilty of rape.'' § 290. Consent immaterial — Female's age. — Under the statutory definition of rape, "by carnally and unlawfully knowing any female under the age of eighteen years," it is not material whether the female gave her consent or not.* Under the statute of Elizabeth a girl under ten years was conclusively presumed to be incapable of consent, and it was rape to have carnal knowledge of her with or without her consent." The statute having declared that a female child under the age of ten years is incapable of consenting to the act of carnal connection, conse- quently, any carnal connection with a child under that age, is neces- sarily against her consent and forcible. '^^ "Moody V. P., 20 111. 319; 3 Greenl. (infant); Jones v. S., 106 Ga. 365, 34 Ev., § 211. S. E. 174 (Infant); S. v. Williams, 'Hawkins P. C, ch. 41; S. v. 149 Mo. 496, 51 S. W. 88. Cunningham, 100 Mo. 382, 12 S. W. » S. v. Frazier, 54 Kan. 719, 39 Pac. 376, 8 Am. C. R. 675; Moody v. P., 819; Head v. S., 43 Neb. 30, 61 N. . 20 111. 319; Queen v. Flattery, 2 Q. B. W. 494; P. v. Verdegreen, 106 Cal, D. 410, 3 Am. C. R. 454; Sowers v. 211, 39 Pac. 607; P. v. Smith (Mich. Ter., 6 Okla. 436, 50 Pac. 257; Com. 1899), 81 N. W. 107; Buchanan v. S. V. Burke, 105 Mass. 377; Doyle v. S., (Tex. Cr. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 769; 39 Fla. 155, 22 So. 272; Pomeroy v. P. v. Roach, 129 Cal. 33, 61 Pac. 574, S., 94 Ind. 96; S. v. Nash, 109 N. C. ' Coates v. S., 50 Ark. 330, 7 S. W. 824, 13 S. E. 874; Hooper v. S., 106 304, 7 Am. C. R. 587; Com. v. Mur- Ala. 41, 17 So. 679; Rice v. S., 35 Fla. phy, 165 Mass. 66, 42 N. E. 504, 10 236, 17 So. 286; Reg. v. Woodhurst, Am. C. R. 67; Gosha v. S., 56 Ga. 36, 12 Cox C. C. 443, 1 Green C. R. 313; 2 Am. C. R. 590; Oliver v. S., 45 1 Bish. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 261; Un- N. J. L. 46. 4 Am. C. R. 533; S. v, derhill Cr. Ev., § 417. Sullivan. 68 Vt. 540, 35 Atl. 479; S. 'Reg.v. Barratt, 12 Cox C. C. 498, v. Dancy, 83 N. C. 608; White v. 1 Green C. R. 314; S. v. Hann, 73 Com., 96 Ky. 180, 28 S. W. 340; S. v. Minn. 140, 76 N. W. 33; S. v. Ruth. Tilman, 30 La. 1249; Crosswell v. 21 Kan. 583; Felton v. S., 139 Ind. P., 13 Mich. 427; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 211; 531, 39 N. E. 228; S. v. Shields, 45 1 Hale P. C. 631; Underhill Cr. Ev., Conn. 256; S. v. Cunningham, 100 § 407. Mo. 382, 12 S. W. 376; S. v. Enright, " S. v. Erickson, 45 Wis. 86, 3 Am. 90 Iowa 520, 58 N. W. 901; S. v. C. R. 340; S. v. Smith, 9 Houst- Ernest, 150 Mo. 347, 51 S. W. 688 (Del.) 588, 33 Atl. 441; S. v. Wray,. 76 hughes' criminal law. § 291 § 291. Aiding, assisting.— The husband compelled his. wife to sub- mit to an attempted sexual intercourse with a colored man; that he, threatened them both in case of refusal. He held a loaded gun over, them in support of such threat. Held that the husband was guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape.^^ § 292. Assault with intent, included. — An assault with intent to commit rape is included in a count charging rape, the same as man- slaughter is included in a count charging murder.^" Assault with intent to commit rape as defined by statute includes every ingredient of the crime of rape except actual penetration of the female by the defendant.^' § 293. Assault, overt act essentia,!. — An assault with intent to commit rape is not complete unless it appears that the defendant did some overt act equivalent to an assault on the female with such in- tent." § 294. Assault with intent. — The prosecutrix, a white woman, was going home alone through the woods. She soon discovered that she was pursued by the accused, a negro, who called out three times to her to stop, and she saw him running after her about seventy yards away. She then began to run "as hard as she could." The accused was ap- proaching her until the road emerged from the woods into a lane in sight of her home. The accused then ceased to pursue her and fled 109 Mo. 594, 19 S. W. 86; Crosswell 303 (attempt); S. v. Shepar^, % T. P., 13 Mich. 429, 432; P. v. Miller, Conn. 54; S. v. Frazler, 53 Kan. 87, 96 Mich. 119, 55 N. W. 675; Head v. 36 Pac. 58; Pratt v. S., 51 Ark. 167, S., 43 Neb. 30, 61 N. W. 494; P. v. 10 S. W. 233; P. V. Abbott, 97 Mich. Goulette, 82 Mich. 36, 45 N. W. 1124; 484, 56 N. W. 862; Com. v. Dean,' 109 Exon V. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 33 S. W. Mass. 349, 1 Gteen C. R. 196; S. v. 336; Com. v. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66, Peters, 56 Iowa 263, 9 N. W. 219; S. 42 N. E. 504; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 211; v. Bagan, 41 Minn. 285, 43 N. W. 5; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 407. P. v. Courier, 79 Mich. 366, 44 N. W. » S. V. Dowell, 106 N. C. 722, 11 571. But see S. v. Hearsey, 50 La. S. E. 525; S. v. Halrston, 121 N. C. 373, 23 So. 372. 579, 28 S. E. 492; P. v. Chapman, 62 " S. v. Smith, 9 Houst. (Del.) 588, Mich. 280, 28 N. W. 896; Caruth v. S. 33 Atl. 441. (Tex. Cr. App.), 28 S. W. 532; 2 "Gaskin v. S., 105 Ga. 631, 31 S. Bish. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 1135. B. 740; S. V. Sherman, 106 Iowa 684, '^ Prindeville v. P., 42 111. 219; S. 77 N. W. 461. See Moon V. S. (Tex. v. Mueller, 85 Wis. 203, 55 N. W. 165; Cr. App.), 45 S. W. 806; Hanes v. S:, Com. v. Cooper, 15 Mass. 187; Poison 155 Ind. 112, 57 N. E. 704; P. V. V. S., 137 Ind. 519, 35 N. E. 907; S. Vann, 129 Cal. 118, 61 Pac. 776. T. Austin, 109 Iowa 118, 80 N. W. § 295 EAPE. 77 into the woods. Held sufficient to constitute an assault with intent to commit rape, though he had not actually seized the woman. ^^ § 295. Atteihpt — ^Instruction, — On a charge of assault with intent to commit rape, an instruction directing the, jury to convict if they believe him guilty of an "attempt," Jas charged in the indictment, is error.^* § 2918. indecent liberties with child. — The offense of taking "inde- cent liberties with the person of a female child" may be committed without taking such liberties of her private parts.^^ § 297. Statute valid — As to age. — The legislature in the proper exercise of its power may pass a law making it rape to carnally know "an'y female child under the age of eighteen.^' Article II. Matters of Defense. § 298. Previous intercourse, no defense. — The fact that the defend- ant may have had sexual intercourse with a female under the age of consent, previous to the act charged in the indictment, is incompetent and no defense.^" §299. Unchastity of female. — The unchastity of the female al- leged to have been ravished, is no defense to a charge of rape. The crime may be committed upon an unchaste woman as well as one of chaste character.^" § 300. ifarriage no defense. — It is no defense to a charge of rape that the defendant has since married the female and that she has for- given him.^^ '"S. V. Neely, 74 N. C. 425; Goldin '"P. v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 37 V. S., 104 Ga. 549, 30 S. B. 749; S. v. Pac. 153; Pratt v. S., 19 Ohio St. 277; Rawles, 65 N. C. 334; S. v. Davis, 1 McQuirk v. S., 84 Ala. 435, 4 So. -Ired. (N. C.) 125. See S. v. Carnagy, 775. But see Underbill Or. Bv., 106 Iowa 483, 76 N. W. 805. But see § 418, citing O'Blenis v. S., 47 N. S. V. Jeffreys, 117 N. C. 743, 23 S. B. J. L. 279; P. v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 175. 289, 39 Pac. 622; S. v. HoUenbeck, 67 "Preisker v. P., 47 111. 383. Vt. 34, 30 Atl. 696; Brown v. S., 72 "P. v. Hicks, 98 Micb. 86, 56 N. Miss. 997, 17 So. 278; S. v. Bberllne, W. 1102. See P. v. Sheffield, 105 47 Kan. 155, 27 Pac. 839; S. v. Mich. 117, 63 N. W. 65. Brown, 55 Kan. 766, 42 Pac. 363. " S. V. Phelps, 22 Wash. 181, 60 ^ S. v. Newcomer, 59 Kan. 668, 54 Pac. 134. Pac. 685. " P. V. Harris, 103 Mich. 473, .61 N. W. 871. 78 hughes' criminal law. § 301 § 301. Woman weak-minded. — Having sexual intercourse with a ■woman who is so weak-minded that she is incapable of giving con- sent, is rape under the statute, and the fact that the defendant did not know of the mental condition of the woman is no defense.'"' § 302. Belief as to age. — That the defendant believed or was told the girl was over the age of consent, is no defense.^' § 303. Soliciting no offense. — ^Merely trying to persuade the female to yield to his embraces, is not sufBeient to sustain the charge against the accused. It must appear that he intended to overcome any re- sistance of the female by force, and compel her to submit.^* The de- fendant not having employed any force to overcome the slight resist- ance offered, but simply fondled with the woman and dallied with her person, and in the absence of threats to do her bodily harm, or other circumstance of duress, held not sufBeient to prove an intent to force the female.^' It must appear from the evidence that the ac- cused made an unlawful assault upon the woman, with intent felon- iously and forcibly to ravish and carnally know her against her will. Taking hold of the woman merely to persuade her will not constitute the assault. Intent is of the essence of the offense.^* § 304. Want of consent essential. — ^Want of consent on the part of the female is of the essence of the crime of rape, and must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a legal conviction.^'' If the carnal knowledge was with the voluntary consent of the woman, no matter how tardily given, or how much force had been theretofore employed, it is not rape.^^ Although the defend- " P. V. Griffin, 117 Cal. 583, 49 Pac. nolds v. P., 41 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 179. 711; Caruth v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 25 =» White v. S., 136 Ind. 308, 36 N. S. W. 778; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 407. E. 274; S. v. Hagerman, 47 Iowa 151; " S. V. Baskett, 111 Mo. 271, 19 Moore v. S., 79 Wis. 546, 48 N. W. S. W. 1097; Edens v. S. (Tex. Cr. 653; Joice v. S., 53 Ga. 50. Ap.), 43 S. W. 89; S. v. Newton, 44 ''Barr v. P., 113 111. 472; S. v. Iowa 45; S. v. Sherman, 106 Iowa McCune, 16 Utah 170, 51 Pac. 818; €84, 77 N. W. 461; P. v. Ratz, 115 Hunter v. S., 29 Pla. 486, 10 So. 730; Cal. 132, 46 Pac. 915. Peterson v. S., 14 Tex. App. 162; S. " Stevens v. P., 158 111. 117, 41 N. v. Williams, 121 N. C. 628, 28 S. E E. 856; McNair v. S., 53 Ala. 453; 405. Toulet V. S., 100 Ala. 72, 14 So. « Sutton v. P., 145 111. 287, 34 N. 403; Riley v. Com. (Ky. 1900), 55 E. 420; Reynolds v. S., 27 Neh. 90, S. W. 547; S. v. Harney, 101 Mo. 42 N. W. 903; Whittaker v. S., 50 470, 14 S. W. 657; S. v. Kendall, 73 Wis. 518, 7 N. W. 431; Ter. v. Potter, Iowa 255, 34 N. W. 843; Com. v. 1 Ariz. 421, 25 Pac. 529. Merrill, 14 Gray (Mass.) 415; Tiller '» Whittaker v. S., 50 Wis. 518, 7 T. S., 101 Ga. 782, 29 S. E. 424; Rey- N. W. 431; Conners v. S., 47 Wis. -§ 305 KAPE. 79 ant may have used such force as would ordinarily overcome the re- sistance of the female, yet if she finally consents to his embraces and submits to having sexual intercourse without any physical or mental resistance, there is no offense committed.^' § 305. Infant unable — Age. — ^Under the common law an infant Tinder the age of fourteen is unable to commit the crime of rape. But if it appears that an infant between the age of seven and fourteen has mind to distinguish good and evil, he may be convicted.^" An infant under fourteen years of age is presumed in law to be unable to commit rape, and, therefore, can not be guilty of that crime. But the pre- .sumption is merely prima facie, and may be rebutted by proof.^^ § 306. Assault — Female consents. — On a charge of an assault with intent to commit rape, a conviction can not be had if the female con- sented, even though she was under the age of consent, where the de- fendant would have been guilty of rape had he accomplished the act intended.'^ Article III. Indictment. § 307. Force must be alleged. — "Eape is the carnal knowledge ■of a female forcibly and against her will." Force is an element of the crime, and the act must be alleged to have been done "forcibly."^^ 523, 2 N. W. 1143. See Sutton v. P., 39 La. 935, 3 So. 57; Williams v. S., 145 111. 286, 34 N. E. 420; Mathews 20 Pla. 777, 5 Am. C. R. 614; David- T. S., 101 Ga. 547, 29 S. B. 424; Hoi- son v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 540, 47 S. W. lis V. S., 27 Pla. 387, 9 So. 67; Mills 213; S. v. Coleman, 54 S. C. 162, 31 v. U. S., 164 U. S. 644, 17 S. Ct. 210; S. E. 866; Foster v. Com., 96 Va. 306, Reynolds v. S., 27 Neb. 90, 42 N. W. SI S. W. 503; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 449; 903. Williams v. S., 14 Ohio 222 (as- '» Mathews v. S., 101 Ga. 547, 29 S. sault); P. v. Randolph, 2 Parker Cr. E. 424; Taylor v. S., 110 Ga. 150, 35 R. (N. Y.) 213 (assault); Underhill S. E. 161. Cr. Ev., § 408. "Heilman v. Com., 84 Ky. 457, 1 "^Hardin v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 406, 46 ■S. W. 731; Williams v. S., 20 Fla. S. W. 803; Welch v. S. (Tex. Cr. 777, 5 Am. C. R. 614; Gordon v. S., App.), 46 S. W. 812. See Morgan v. 93 Ga. 531, 21 S. E. 54,; King v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 50 S. W. 718. Crroomhridge, 7 C. & P. 582; McKin- Contra, P. v. Lourintz, 114 Cal. 628, my V. S., 29 Fla. 565, 10 So. 732; 46 Pac. 613; S. v. Hunter, 18 Wash. 1 Hale P. C. 629; 4 Bl. Com. 212; 670, 52 Pac. 247; Allen v. S., 36 Tex. Hiltahiddle v. S., 35 Ohio St. 52; Cr. 381, 37 S. W. 429; Callison v. Chism V. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 399; 3 S., 37 Tex. Cr. 211, 39 S. W. 300; S. ■Greenl. Ev., § 215; Underhill Cr. v. Sullivan, 68 Vt. 540, 35 Atl. 479; Ev., § 408. Croomes v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 672, 51 "^Bird v. S., 110 Ga. 315, 35 S. E. S. W. 924; Porter v. P., 158 111. 372 156; Gordon v. S., 93 Ga. 531, 21 S. 41 N. B. 886. See Hanes v. S 155 B. 54, 9 Am. C. R. 445; S. v. Jones, ind. 112, 57 N. E. 704. «" Porter v. P., 158 111. 372, 41 N, '80 hughes' criminal law. §308 § 308. Force not essential. — Where the statute provides that per- sons sixteen years of age or over who shall have carnal knowledge of any female person under the age of fourteen years, either with or with- out her consent, shall be guilty of rape, force is not essential to be alleged in the indictment.** The indictment, in alleging that the female was of tender years and under the age of consent, is'sufiBcient Without alleging "with force and against her will."'" § 309. "jKgainst will," when immaterial. — 'Under the statutory definition of rape by having carnal knowledge of a female under the age of sixteen years, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the act was committed "against her will," or by force.'" But if the female al- leged to have been ravished is over the age of consent, then the indict- inent must, with other essential averments, allege that the act was com- mitted "against her will," this being an essential element of the '^ofEense as defined by statute.'^ § 310. Age of accused — Defense. — ^It has never been held that in charging the crime of rape as defined at common law, it was necessary to aver that the accused was at the time of the age of fourteen years or upward.'^ Under a statute providing that a person "over sixteen years old who carnally knows a female under fourteen years' old, with or without her consent," shall be guilty of rape, the indictment need not allege that the defendant was over the age of sixteen; for if the -defendant is not over the age of sixteen, it is a matter of defense.'" § 311. Averring age of female. — An indictment charging the de- fendant with having carnal knowledge of a female "under the age of ipuberty, to wit: of the age of fourteen years," sufficiently charges E. 886; McNalr v. S., 53 Ala. 453, 2 »»P. v. Shoonmaker, 117 Mich. Am. C. R. 583; Com. v. McDonald, 190, 75 N. 'W. 439; Myers v. S., 54 110 Mass. 405; Hall v. S., 40 Neb. Neb. 297, 74 N. W. 605; S. v. Bowser, 320, 58 N. W. 929. 21 Mont. 133, 53 Pac. 179 (force). »* Porter v. P., 158 111. 372, 41 N. E. " S. v. Austin, 109 Iowa 118, 80 886. N. W. 303. ^S. V. Black, 63 Me. 210; Farrell ^P. v. Ah Yek, 29 Cal. 575; Sut- V. S., 54 N. J. L. 416, 24 Atl. 723; ton v. P., 145 111. 285, 34 N. B. 420; Com. V. Sullivan, 6 Gray (Mass.) Cornelius v. S., 13 Tex. App. 349; 477; S. V. Miller, 111 Mo. 542, 20 S. Com. v. Sugland, 4 Gray (Mass.) 7. W. 243; Helton v. S., 28 Fla. 303, » S. v. Sullivan, 68 Vt. 540, 35 Atl. 9 So. 716; P. V. Ranged, 112 Cal. 669, 479; P. v. Wessel, 98 Cal. 352, 33 Pac. 44 Pac. 1071; Porter v. P., 158 111. 216; Davis v. S., 42 Tex. 226; S. v. 370, 41 N. B. 886. Contra, Jones v. Ward, 35 Minn. 182, 28 N. W. 192. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 46 S. W. 813. §•312 RAPE. 81 the offense of having carnal knowledge of a female under the age of sixteen years.*" § 312. Marriage immaterial. — ^Under a statute which provides that "whoever shall ravish a woman, married or maid or other, where she did not consent, either before or after^ and likewise where a man rav- isheth a woman with force, although she consents after, he shall beii deemed guilty of rape," it is not necessary to allege in the indictment whether the woman was married or to state her age.** § 313. Not wife of defendant. — An indictment for abusing and having carnal knowledge of a female child need not allege that; the child is not the wife of the defendant even though it appears from, the indictment that she bears the same name as that of the defendi- ant.*^ Nor need the indictment allege that the woman assaulted' was not the wife of the defendant.*^ But under a statute defining rape to be "the carnal knowledge of a female under the age of fifteen years, other than the wife of the person," an indictment which fails to nega- tive the fact that the female was the wife of the defendant, is fatally defective.** But if the female is over the age of fifteen, the indictment need not allege that she was not the wife of the defendant.*" § 314. "Eavish" not essential, — The word "ravish" is not essential in charging the offense of rape where it is not used in the statutory description of the crime.** §315. "Feloniously" immaterial. — ^It is not necessary under the statute to allege in the indictment in charging the crime of rapeon'a girl under the age of fourteen years that the defendant committed: the act "feloniously" or "unlawfully," these words not being mentioned in the statutory definition.*^ "Inman v. S., 65 Ark. 508, 47 S. W. 801; Dudley v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 543, W. 558; King v. S., 120 Ala. 329, 25 40 S. "W. 269; Young v. Ter., 8 Okla. So. 178; S. V. Erickson (Minn.), 83 525, 58 Pac. 724. See P. v. Flaherty, N. W. 512. 29 N. Y. Supp. 641, 79 Hun 48; " S. V. Haddon, 49 S. C. 308, 27 S. Parker v. Ter., 9 Okla. 109, 59 Pac. 9. E. 194. "Caidenas v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.),. « S. V. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306, 44 40 S. W. 980. Pac. 538. " Wilkey v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 578, 47 "S. V. White, 44 Kan. 514, 25 Pac. S. W. 219; Tway v. S., 7 Wyo. 74, 50 33; Com. V. Scannel, 11 Cush. Pac. 188. See S. v. Phelps, 22 Wash. (Mass.) 547. 181, 60 Pac. 134. "Rice V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 36, 38 S. "Asher v. Ter., 7 Okla. 188, 54; hughes' c. l. — 6 32 hughes' criminal law. § 316 § 316. "Female" immaterial. — An indictment failed to allege the person ravished was a female, but the name is of a female, and in the- indictment she is spoken of and referred to by the use of the feminine pronoun. The indictment was held sufficient on a motion in arrest.*' § 317. By personating husband. — An indictment charging the de- fendant with attempting to commit rape on a married woman by fraud in personating her husband, need not state the name of the husband of the woman; nor need the facts constituting the fraud be stated." '§318. Duplicity — Kape; assault with intent. — ^An indictment "charging that the defendant did unlawfully and carnally know and ;abuse a female child under the age of sixteen, and also that he made an assault with intent to commit rape, is not bad for duplicity.'"' § 319. Indictment — Joining several defendants. — Several persons may be indicted jointly for the same charge of rape where they aid and xibet each other in the commission of the offense.^^ f 320. Attempt, act essential. — An indictment charging that the defendant assaulted a girl (naming her) under the age of ten years, with intent to carnally know her, is defective under a statute, which reads as follows: "Any person who has carnal knowledge of any female under ten years of age, or abuses such female, in the at- tempt to have carnal knowledge of her, must, on conviction, be pun- ished by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for life." The indictment fails to allege any physical act toward the commission of -the crime. "^ Pac. 445; S. v. Hutchinson, 95 Iowa 323, 17 Pac. 208 (fraud). But see 566, 64 N. W. 610; Barnard v. S., 88 S. v. Vorey, 41 Minn. 135, 43 N. W. -Wis. 656, 60 N. W. 1058; S. v. Lang- 324. lEord, 45 La. 1177, 14 So. 181. Contra, » Com. v. Hackett, 170 Mass. 194, Hays V. S., 57 Miss. 783; S. V. Porter, 48 N. E. 1087; S. v. Elswood, 15 48 La. 1539, 21 So. 125. Wash. 453, 46 Pac. 727; De Berry v. «S. V. Fielding, 32 Me. 585; S., 99 Tenn. 207, 42 S. W. 31; Ox- Barker V. S., 40 Fla. 178, 24 So. 69; sheer v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 499, 43 S. W. S. V. Hussey, 7 Iowa 409; O'Rourkev. 335; Buchanan v. S. (Tex. Cr. App. S., 8 Tex. App. 70; Taylor v. Com., 1899), 52 S. W. 769. 20 Gratt. (Va.) 825; S. v. Ward, 35 " S. v. Harris, 150 Mo. 56, 51 S. Minn. 182, 28 N. W. 192; S. v. War- W. 481. Tier, 74 Mo. 83; Anderson v. S., 34 "Toulet v. S., 100 Ala. 72, 14 So. Ark. 257. 403; S. v. Frazier, 53 Kan. 87, 36 "Franklin v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 203, Pac. 58. 29 S. W. 1088; P. v. Snyder, 75 Cal. § 321 BAPE. 83 § 321. Simple assault included. — An indictment, though defective as to the charge of assault with intent to commit rape, may be sufficient for simple assault.^' § 322. "Assault and battery" — When essential. — Where an assault and battery is made an element of the offense of assault and battery with intent to commit rape, an indictment charging the offense must allege the battery, otherwise it will be defective.^* § 323. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment charging rape al- leging, with proper averments, the time and place, that the defendant in and upon a certain female (naming her), about the age of fourteen years, unlawfully, violently and feloniously did make an assault on her, and then and there unlawfully, forcibly and against her will, feloniously did ravish and carnally know her, is sufficient.^^ Aeticle IV. Evidence; Variance. §324. Female's complaint. — ^Where the complaining witness has •complained to her father about having been ravished, such complaint is proper evidence on the trial, only of the fact of making the com- plaint, and not of who the person was that committed the offense."* " Com. v. McCarty, 165 Mass. 37, Mo. 622, 23 S. W. 765. Contra, Brown 42 N. E. 336. v. P., 36 Mich. 203, 2 Am. C. R. 587; "Wilson V. S., 103 Tenn. 87, 52 S. v. Cook, 92 Iowa 483, 61 N W S- W. 869. 185; Burt v. S., 23 Ohio St. 394, 2 ■» S. V. Harris, 150 Mo. 56, 51 S. W. Green C. R. 545; Reg. v. LlUyman 481- L. R. (1896) 2 Q. B. D. 167; S. v.' » Bean v. P., 124 111. 582, 16 N. B. Neel, 21 Utah 157, 60 Pac. 510. If the 656; Stevens v. P., 158 111. 121, 41 complaint of the prosecutrix is so N. B. 856; Lowe v. S., 97 Ga. 792, 25 closely connected with the time or S. B. 676; Harmon v. Ter., 5 Okla. place, when or where the offense was ■368, 49 Pac. 55; Benstine v. S., 2 committed, then all the details of Lea (Tenn.) 169, 3 Am. C. R. 390; what she said on making such com- S. V. Niles, 47 Vt. 82, 1 Am. C. R. plaint, may be shown in evidence as 648; S. V. Baker, 106 Iowa 99, 76 N. forming part of the res gestae: S v W. 509; S. V. Hunter, 18 Wash. 670, Jerome, 82 Iowa 749, 48 N W 722- S S2 Pac. 247; P. v. Lambert, 120 Cal. v. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I 236 27 Atl' 170, 52 Pac. 307; Reddick v. S., 35 446; S. v. Byrne, 47 Conn 465- Cas- Tex. Cr. 463, 34 S. W. 274; S. v. tlllo v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 145 19 S W Clark, 69 Iowa 294, 28 N. W. 606; 892; P. v. Glover, 71 Mich 303 38 N Barnett v. S., 83 Ala. 40, 3 So. 612; W. 874; Barner v. S 88 Ala '204 7 ^- I- ^Y!.°!'„^^ ^- ^- ^- 233; Maillet So. 38. Contra, as to person co'm- \- ^-'Jl ^^^}'--^^'^' ^ N- ^- 85*' 3 mitting the assault, see cases under Am. C. R. 380; Poison v. S., 137 Ind. § 325. 519, 35 N. E. 907; S. v. Yocum, 117 84 hughes' criminal x-aw. § 325', § 325. Female's complaint, particnlars improper. — Evidence that the female assaulted made complaint is competent for the purpose of proving the assault and identifying the person who assaulted her, but the details of what she said at the time of complaining is incompe- tent.°^ If the defendant desires to inquire into the particulars of the complaint made by the female, he can do so on cross-examination, and the particulars may be proven by the prosecution by way of eonfi)Tming the witness after she has been impeached.''* § 326. Complaint of female — Res gestae. — Evidence of the com- plaint of the female alleged to, have been ravished is competent, not as part of the res gestae or for the purpose of disproving consent, but as tending to corroborate her testimony."' § 327. Complaint of female — Pain. — ^Where a child, in making complaint of a criminal assault upon her, gave expressions of pain, it is competent to prove on what part of her person she indicated the pain.*" § 328. Complaint of female next day. — On a charge of abusing and ravishing a female under sixteen years of age, it is competent to show on the trial that she complained to her mother the next day, although she was taken home crying and frightened the evening before, when the assault occurred."^ § 329. Complaint — ^Mother's examination. — The mother of the child alleged to have been ravished may state as a witness that the " S. V. Carroll, 67 Vt. 477, 32 Atl. »» Com. v. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 51 235; Ter. v. Maldonado, 9 N. M. 629, N. E. 746; Caudle v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 58 Pac. 350. See Harmon v. Ter., 9 App. 26, 28 S. W. 810; S. v. Cook Okla. 313, 60 Pac. 115; Williams v. (Iowa), 61 N. W. 185. See P. v. Bar- S., 66 Ark. 264, 50 S. W. 517. ney, 114 Cal. 554, 47 Pac. 41; S. v. » Stevens v. P., 158 111. 121, 41 Brown, 125 N. C. 606, 34 S. E. 105; N. E. 856; Wood v. S., 46 Neb. 58, S. v. Imlay (Utah), 61 Pac. 557. 64 N. W. 355; S. v. Niles, 47 Vt Contra, Snowden v. U. S., 2 App. D. 82; S. V. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; Baccio C. 89; S. v. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, V. P., 41 N. Y. 265; 3 Greenl. Ev., 27 Atl. 446. § 213; Parker v. S., 67 Md. 329, 10 ™ S. v. Hutchison, 95 Iowa 566, 64 Atl. 219; Griffin v. S., 76 Ala. 29; S. N. W. 610. V. Clark, 69 Iowa 294, 28 N. W. 606; "Com. v. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 51 S. V. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 163, 17 S. N. E. 746; Robertson v. S. (Tex. W. 666; S. V, Freeman, 100 N. C. Cr. App.), 49 S. W. 398; P. v. Ber- 429, 5 S. E. 921; Underbill Cr. Ev., nor, 115 Mich. 692, 74 N. W. 184; S. § 410. citing Castillo v. S., 31 Tex. v. Sudduth, 52 S. C. 488, 30 S. B. Cr. 145, 151, 19 S. W. 892; Proper v. 408. See S. v. Peterson, 110 Iowa S., 85 Wis. 615, 55 N. W. 1035; S. v. 647, 82 N. W. 329; Underbill Cr. Ev., Kenney, 44 Conn. 153; S. v. Lang- § 409. ford, 45 La. 1177, 14 So. 181. <§ 330 EAPB. 85 child made complaint to her of the assault as soon as she returned home, and that she examined the child, and may also give in evidence t:he result of such examination as to the condition of the child.°^ § 330. Complaint of female — Delay. — Through shame or fear the :girl may conceal or even deny that the act was committed on her. Her after conduct may be of little or no importance, considering her age, intelligence and experience."* § 331. Complaint of female incompetent. — If the female alleged to have been assaulted does not testify as a witness, then any complaint she may have made after the assault is not competent, whether she ia an imbecile or not.°* § 332. Complaint of female, too remote. — ^Where the girl alleged to have been ravished remains silent about it for iive months before telling any one, giving as a reason that she was afraid of the defend- ant and that he told her if she told it would be worse for her, such complaint is incompetent to be given in evidence; it is too remote."" Where the evidence on a charge of rape fails to show that the female made any outcry or complaint very soon after the assault alleged to iave been made upon her, and without any reasonable excuse for the •delay to make complaint when she had opportunity to do so, a convic- tion should not be had."" § 333. No complaint or outcry. — That the female made no outcry, that her husband was at the time within a few rods of the place of the alleged rape, and that she and her husband remained for an hour and •^P. V. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244, 49 Vt. 1, 10, 28 Atl. 323; Thompson v. Pac. 186; Pefferling v. S., 40 Tex. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 472, 26 S. W. 987; -486; S. V. Sargent, 32 Or. 110, 49 Pac. Bueno v. P., 1 Colo. App. 232, 28 Pac 889; S. v. Sanford, 124 Mo. 484, 27 248; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 411; P v S. W. 1099; Poison v. S., 137 Ind. Glover, 71 Mich. 303, 38 N. W 874 519, 35 N. E. 907; Hornbeck v. S., (afraid of whipping). 35 Ohio St. 277; Proper v. S., 85 Wis. "S. v. Meyers, 46 Neb. 152, 64 N 615, 55 N. W. 1035. W. 697; S. v. Mitchell, 68 Iowa 116 »» Sutton v. P., 145 111. 288, 34 N. 26 N. "W. 44; Proctor v. Com. 14 Ky B. 420; Poison v. S., 137 Ind. 519, 35 L. 248, 20 S. W. 213. Contra, John- N. B. 907 (mother absent); S. v. son v. S., 17 Ohio 593. Cross, 12 Iowa 66; S. v. Marshall, "P. v. Duncan, 104 Mich 460 62 Phil. 49. See Crockett v. S., 49 Ga. N. W. 556. 185; Bennett v. S., 102 Ga. 656, 29 S. ™P. v. O'Sullivan, 104 N Y 481 E. 918; Jackson V. S., 91 Wis. 253, 64 10 N. B. 880; Thompson v S 33 1^. W. 838; P. V. Lambert, 120 Cal. Tex. Cr. 472, 26 S. W. 987- S v 170, 52 Pac. 307; S. v. Wilkins, 66 Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 17 "s w' 666 86 hughes' criminal law. § SS't a half with the defendant, in a friendly manner, are circumstances raising a strong presumption that the crime was not committed.'^ § 334. Complaint of attempt. — The rule with respect to the ad- missibility of the complaint of the prosecutrix must be held to be the same where the charge is an attempt to ravish, as it is when the crime of rape itself is charged."* § 335. Complaint — Excuse for delay. — When the prosecuting wit- ness offers an excuse for the delay in making complaint against the defendant for assaulting her, she may be cross-examined on the matter of such excuse."* § 336. Kesistance essential. — Where the prosecutrix wag conscious and had possession of her natural, mental and physical powers, and- was not terrified by threats, or in such a position that resistance would be useless, it must appear that she resisted to the extent of her ability.'" The nature and extent of resistance by the female, which- ought reasonably to be expected in each particular case, must neces- sarily depend very much upon the peculiar circumstances attending it, and it is hence quite impracticable to lay down any rule upon that subject as applicable to all cases involving the necessity of showing a reasonable resistance.''^ Even if the view be taken that evidence of want of consent alone is sufficient, yet it must appear that there was resistance, unless some excuse for want of resistance is shown.'^ § 337. Impeaching chastity. — It is a general rule that the character of the prosecutrix for chastity may be impeached; but this must be "Barney v. P., 22 111. 160; Sutton N. E. 904; O'Boyle v. S., 100 Wis. V. P., 145 111. 279, 34 N. E. 420; S. 296, 75 N. W. 989; P. v. Dohring, 59 v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 17 S. W. N. Y. 374; P. v. Morrison, 1 Park. 666. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 625; Whitney v. S., 35 »» S. V. Ivins, 36 N. J. L. 233, 2 Ind. 506. But see S. v. Sudduth, 52 Green C. R. 592; P. v. Barney, 114 S. C. 488, 30 S. E. 408. Cal. 554, 47 Pac. 41; Brazier's Case, "Anderson v. S., 104 Ind. 467, 4 1 East P. C. 443. N. B. 63, 5 N. B. 711, 5 Am. C. R. "P. v. Knight (Cal.), 43 Pac. 6. 607; P. v. Connor, 126 N. Y. 278, 27 ™01eson V. S., 11 Neb. 276, 9 N. N. B. 252; Com. v. McDonald, 110 W. 38; P. v. Abbott, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) Mass. 405; P. v. Lynch, 29 Mich. 194; Taylor v. S., 50 Ga. 79; S. v. 274; Hawkins v. S., 136 Ind. 630, Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65, 2 Green C. R. 36 N. B. 419; 2 Bish. Cr. Law.,. 594; Whittaker v. S., 50 Wis. 518, § 1122; Underbill Cr. Bv., §§ 407,. 7 N. W. 431; Moran v. P., 25 Mich. 417. 356; Huber v. S., 126 Ind. 185, 25 " Austine v. P., 110 111. 248. § 338 RAPE. 87 done by general reputation in that respect, and not by particular actsJ* A chaste woman is one who never had unlawful sexual intercourse with a male person prior to the intercourse complained of in the indictment.'* As a defense to a charge of rape, the defendant offered to prove that the prosecutrix was in the habit of receiving men at her rooms for sexual intercourse, and the offer was properly rejected. '''' § 338. Former unchastity incompetent. — Evidence of former un- chastity of the female alleged to have been ravished is incompetent, and it is improper to ask her on cross-examination if she had ever had sexual intercourse with other men.'' § 339. Previous acts. — Prior acts of undue intimacy between the defendant and the female are competent as furnishing a predicate for a presumption of consent on the occasion of the alleged consent."* Other acts of sexual intercourse with a female under the age of con- sent, besides that charged in the indictment, may be shown in evi- dence, as tending to show the probability of the guilt of the defend- ant, and as tending to corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness.'* § 340. Other voluntary acts. — The prosecutrix on cross-examina- tion may be asked if at certain specified times and places before the time of the commission of the alleged offense she had voluntarily had. "Maxey v. S., 66 Ark. 523, 52 S. "Wood v. P., 1 T. & C. (N. Y.) 610^ W. 2; Shirwin v. P., 69 111. 59; Ter. 1 Green C. R. 659; P. v. Jackson, 3 V. Pino, 9 N. M. 598, 58 Pac. 393; S. Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 391. See Ter. v. v. Brown, 55 Kan. 766, 42 Pac. 363; Pino, 9 N. M. 598, 58 Pac. 393. S. V. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, 27 Atl. "Rice v. S., 35 Fla. 236, 17 So, 446, 9 Am. C. R. 347; McCombs v. S., 286; P. v. Jolinson, 106 Cal. 289, 39 8 Ohio St. 643; S. v. Knapp, 45 N. H. Pac. 622; Brown v. S., 72 Miss. 997, 148. See S. v. Daniel, 87 N. C. 507; 17 So. 278. Contra, S. v. Hollen- Benstlne v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 169; beck, 67 Vt. 34, 30 Atl. 696; P. v. S. V. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122, 17 Shea, 125 Cal. 151, 57 Pac. 885. ' Pac. 620; Shields v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. "Barnes v. S., 88 Ala. 207, 7 So. 498, 23 S. W. 893; O'Blenis v. S., 38; P. v. Goulette, 82 Mich. 36, 45 47 N. J. L. 279; Anderson v. S., 104 N. "W. 1124; S. v. Cook, 65 Iowa 560, Ind. 467, 4 N. B. 63, 5 N. B. 711; P. 22 N. W. 675; Underbill Cr. Ev., V. Jackson, 3 Parker Cr. R. (N. Y.) § 415, citing P. v. Manahan, 32 391; Rice v. S., 35 Fla. 236, 48 Am. Cal. 68; S. v. Robinson, 32 Or. 43, 48 St. 245, 17 So. 286; S. v. Ward, 73 Pac. 357; P. v. Abbott, 97 Mich. 484, Iowa 532, 35 N. W. 617; P. v. Abbot, 56 N. W. 862; S. v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 192; S. v. Hilberg 147, 17 S. W. 666; S. v. Knapp, 45. (Utah), 61 Pac. 215; 3 Greenl. Bv., N. H. 148, 156. §§ 27, 214; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., " Hamilton v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 372, § 298. 37 S. W. 431; P. v. Grauer, 42 N. Y. "Bailey v. S., 57 Neb. 706, 78 N. Supp. 721. W. 284. 86 hughes' criminal law. §341 connection with the prisoner, and if she deny it, she may be contra- dieted by evidence.'^* § 341. Acts with other men. — On cross-examination the complain- ing witness was asked if she ever had sexual intercourse ' with others previous to the charge against the accused, and she answered in the negative. A witness for the defendant was introduced and asked to prove acts of indeceny and illicit intercourse by the complaining wit- ness, with persons other than the defendant. Held error in the couft rejecting this offered evidence.*" §342. Impeaching prosecutrix. — The prosecuting witness, the daughter of the defendant, may be asked on cross-examination whether she had not stated that she and her brother and sister were putting up a job on their father for the purpose of sending him to prison, so that the prosecuting witness could live with her sister. This was proper as laying the foundation for impeachment.*^ The accused, in his rebutting evidence, introduced a witness who, on cross-examination, stated that on the night the assault was made and immediately after it occurred, he saw the prosecuting witness, and that she then stated that it was Jillson's hired man who made the assault, and that he wore a white hat at the time. To this answer the prosecution objected, and the evidence was excluded. Held error.*'' § 343. Female's exclamations competent. — Evidence of any ex- clamations or conduct of the female alleged to have been ravished, may be shown as tending to prove that she was sick and lame.*^ § 344. Female's condition — Lame. — Where a witness for the prose- cution testified that the female alleged to have been ravished walked "Rex V. Riley, 16 Cox. C. C. 191, Atl. 446; S. v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122, 7 Am. C. R. 99; Bedgood v. S., 115 17 Pac. 620. Ind. 275, 17 N. E. 621; P. V. Flaherty, '"Benstlne v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 79 Hun (N. Y.) 48, 29 N. Y. Supp. 169, 3 Am. C. R. 387. See Reg. v. 641; S. V. Cook, 65 Iowa 560, 22 N. Holmes, 12 Cox C. C. 137; Shlrwin W. 675; P. V. Knight (Cal.), 43 Pac. v. P., 69 111. 55, 1 Am. C. R. 650. €. Contra, Underbill Cr. Ev., § 418, " P. v. Lambert, 120 Cal. 170, 52 citing S. V. Cassidy, 85 Iowa 145, 52 Pac. 307. N. W. 1; S. V. Brown, 55 Kan. 766, 42 »= Kennedy v. P., 44 111. 285. Pac. 363; Com. v. Harris, 131 Mass. ''Dunn v. S., 58 Neb. 807, 79 N. W. 336; S. V. Fltzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, 22 719. §345 KAPE. 89 lame, it may be shown by way of contradiction that she walked as usual, and did not appear to be lame.** § 345. Venereal disease — ^When competent. — ^If it appears upon examination of the female that she has a venereal disease, then it is competent to show that the defendant had similar disease about the time of his arrest.*^ The fact that the female alleged to have been ravished had contracted a venereal disease several years before, by having promiscuous sexual intercourse, is incompetent and no defense to a charge of rape.^° § 346. Other acts of rape. — The defendant was indicted for a rape on his own daughter. On the trial of the indictment the prosecution was permitted to prove that at another time, about two weeks after, he committed a like ofEense on his other daughter, the court restricting this evidence as going to the credibility of the accused. Held error.*^ The prosecuting witness having testified to one occasion when the de- fendant assaulted her, to permit evidence of another distinct assault committed on her and another girl, by the defendant, some days after, is incompetent and prejudicial.'* § 347. Settlement offered. — That the female alleged to have been ravished desired to settle with the defendant from the beginning, is a fact competent to be given in evidence.** If the accused send a per- son to the prosecution to see if the case can be compromised, it is com- petent to prove that fact.*" "Hardtke v. S., 67 Wis. 552, 30 319; S. v. Thompson, 14 Wash. 285, N. W. 723, 7 Am. C. R. 581. The 44 Pac. 533; S. v. Stevens, 56 Kan. physical condition of the female 720, 44 Pac. 992. alleged to have been ravished, may "^ Parkinson v. P., 135 111. 404, 25 always be given in evidence, such ag N. E. 764; P. v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, bruises and marks on her person, 1 Am. C. R. 661; Porath v. S., 90 the condition of her clothing and the Wis. 527, 63 N. W. 1061; S. v. Wal- like: S. v. Sanford, 124 Mo. 484, 27 ters, 45 Iowa 389; Thompson v. S., . S. W. 1099; Gonzales v. S., 32 Tex. 43 Tex. 583; Com. v. Merrill 14 Cr. 611, 620, 25 S. W. 781; Poison v. Gray (Mass.) 415; P. v. Flaherty, P., 137 Ind. 519, 35 N. E. 907. 162 N. Y. 532, 57 N. E. 73, 50 N. Y. *'P. V. Glover, 71 Mich. 303, 38 Supp. 574. Contra, P. v. Flaherty, N. W. 874. 50 N. Y. Supp. 574. "Brown v. S., 72 Miss. 997, 17 So. ^'Huff v. S., 106 Ga. 432; 32 S. E. 278. 348. *" Janzen v. P., 159 111. 441, 42 N. "Barr v. P., 113 111. 473; McMath E. 862, 10 Am. C. R. 489; S. v. La v. S., 55 Ga. 303; Hardtke v. S., 67 page, 57 N. H. 245, 2 Am. C. R. 574; Wis. 552, 30 N. W. 723. P. V. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 14 N. E. 90 hughes' criminal law. § 34S § 348. Leading questions. — In a prosecution for rape the witnesses who gave the only testimony tending to prove the charge were two little girls, nine and eleven years old ; and the court permitted, over objection, a series of leading questions to be put and answered, relat- ing to the most material parts of the accusation. Held error. '^ § 349. Proof of child's age. — The testimony of the child alleged to have been criminally assaulted as to her age, is competent, and the jury may take into consideration the appearance of the child in de- termining her age.°^ § 350. Age material. — An allegation in the information that the subject of the ravishment was under ten years of age, calling for a severer punishment than if over that age, was a material and sub- stantive part of the crime, and must, therefore, be proved in order to convict the defendant."^ § 351. Cruelty of defendant. — In a prosecution for rape the com- plaining witness may show in evidence that the accused is her father and a man of great strength, and had been abusive to his family, and often beat his wife, and that at the time of the outrage he was in liquor and she was in great fear.'* § 352. Result of examination competent. — The details of the result of a physical examination, by a competent physician, of the female upon whom the crime of rape is alleged to have been committed, may be given in evidence; he may give his opinion whether there had been actual penetration or whether sexual intercourse was possible or not.'* The medical expert witness may give an opinion based upon a hypo- thetical question stating material facts proved, or assumed to be proved, or he may base his opinion as to the causes of the physical condition of the prosecutrix upon the evidence of another physician who, having examined her, describes her condition as he observed it.°* "Coon V. P., 99 111. 369. W. 854, 3 Am. C. R. 379; P. v. Bur- »^Com. V. Phillips, 162 Mass. 504, well, 106 Mich. 27, 63 N. W. 986. 39 N. B. 109. »=Woodin v. P., 1 Park. C. R. (N. "^S. V. Erickson, 45 Wis. 86, 3 Am. Y.) 464; Poison v. S., 137 Ind. 519, C. R. 341; Greer v. S., 50 Ind. 267; 35 N. B. 907; Hardtke v. S., 67 Wis. Mobley v. S., 46 Miss. 501-508; Bish. 552, 30 N. W. 723; Myers v. S., 84 Stat. Crimes, § 487. Ala. 11, 4 So. 291. " Maillet v. P., 42 Mich. 262, 3 N. »'' Underhill Cr. By., § 412, citing § 353 RAPE. 91 § 353. Physician's examination. — The result of the examination of a physician about four years after the offense charged, is incompetent where the female, in the meantime, had sexual intercourse with others than the defendant."^ The opinion of a physician who examined the female alleged to have been ravished, that no girl would have volun- tarily submitted to the suffering attending the result of his examina- tion, is incompetent.*' § 354. Child's condition — Cause. — Where the condition of the child alleged to have been ravished was shown in evidence as tending to prove the guilt of the defendant, he may show by a physician that the child's condition might have been caused by disease or other means than rape.°° § 355. No pain, or bleeding. — The prosecuting witness, a girl thir- teen years old, having testified that the act of sexual intercourse with her by the defendant caused no pain nor soreness nor bleeding, that she had never had sexual intercourse before, the defendant may show that sexual intercourse with a girl so young would naturally be fol- lowed by pain, soreness and bleeding.^"" § 35G. Prosecutrix's evidence sufficient. — The uncorroborated evi- dence of the prosecutrix alone will warrant a conviction if it con- vinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged (unless, by statute, corroboration of her evidence is required) .^ But a conviction should not be had on such uncorroborated testimony if the female be impeached for chastity.^ S. V. Watson, 81 Iowa 380, 46 N. Pac. 180; S. v. Harris, 150 Mo. 56, W. 868. 51 S. W. 481. The evidence in the "P. V. Cornelius, 55 N. Y. Supp. following cases was held sufficient 723. to sustain convictions: Baer v. S. ='S. V. Hull, 45 "W. Va. 767, 32 S. (Neh. 1900), 81 N. W. 856; Sawyer E. 240. V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 557, 47 S. W. "P. V. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244, 49 650; Payne v, S., 40 Tex. Cr. 202, 49 Pac. 186. S. W. 604; Bartlett v. S. (Tex. Cr. ™P. v. Duncan, 104 Mich. 460, 1899), 51 S. W. 918; S. v. Edis, 62 N. "W. 556. 147 Mo. 535, 49 S. W. 563; S. v. ' S. V. Wilcox, 111 Mo. 569, 20 S. Marcks, 140 Mo. 656, 41 S. W. 973, 43 W. 314; Doyle v. S., 39 Fla. 155, 22 S. W. 1095; S. v. Prather, 136 Mo. 20, So. 272; Shirwin v. P., 69 111. 55; 37 S. W. 805; S. v. Thomas, 58 Kan. Lynn v. Com., 11 Ky. L. 772, 13 S. 805, 51 Pac. 228; P. v. Bernor, 115 W. 74; Hammond v. S., 39 Neb. 252, Mich. 692, 74 N. W. 184 (penetrat- 58 N. W. 92. See P. v. Evans, 72 ing); De Berry v. S., 99 Tenn. 207, 42 Mich. 367, 40 N. W. 473. S.W. 31 (assault); S. v. Williams, 121 "S. V. Anderson (Idaho 1899), 59 N. C. 628, 28 S. E. 405; S. v. Under- 92 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. 35^ § 357. Variance, different offense. — A statute providing that "every person who shall unlawfully have carnal knowledge of a woman against her will, or of a woman child under twelve years of age, shall be deemed guilty of rape," enumerates two classes of facts, each of which constitutes rape. Proof of the one class will not sustain a charge of the other class.' § 358. Fraud varies from force. — Proof of committing rape by fraud will not sustain a charge of committing the oflEense by force.* If the indictment charging rape contains an averment that the female was ravished with "force and violence" when force and violence is not an element of the offense as defined by statute^"^ then the allegation of force and violence may be treated as surplusage." § 359. Instruction, on consent.^"Jf you find from the evidence that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the prosecu- wood, 49 La. 1599, 22 So. 831; P. v. Ranged, 112 Cal. 669, 44 Pac; 1071; S. V. Hibler, 149 Mo. 478, 51 S. W. 85; Gifford v. P., 87 111. 211; Rans- Tjottom V. S., 144 Ind. 250, 43 N. E. 218; S. V. Belong, 96 Iowa 471, 65 N. W. 402; S. v. Rudd, 97 Iowa 389, 66 N. W. 748; Dove v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 105, 35 S. W. 648; S. v. Har- lan, 98 Iowa 458, 67 N. W. 381; Smith V. Com., 98 Ky. 437, 33 S. W. 419; Dickerson v. S., 141 Ind. 703, 40 N. B. 667; Felton v. S., 139 Ind. 531, 39 N. B. 228; S. v. DufEey, 128 Mo. 549, 31 S. W. 98 (age); S. v. Bnright, 90 Iowa 520, 58 N. "W. 901; Hardtke v. S., 67 "Wis. 552, 30 N. W. 723, 7 Am. C. R. 581; P. v. Hamilton, 46 Cal. 540, 2 Green C. R. 432; S. v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65, 2 Green C. R. 593; S. V. Blythe, 20 Utah 379, 58 Pac. 1108. The evidence in the fol- lowing cases was held not sufficient to sustain convictions: Jacques v. P., 66 111. 84; Hancock v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 47 S. W. 465; P. v. Tarbox, 115 Cal. 57, 46 Pac. 896; Alexander V. S. (Miss.), 21 So. 923; S. v. lago, 66 Minn. 231, 68 N. W. 969; Boxley V. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 649, 1 Am. C. R. 655; Cheney v. S., 109 Ga. 503, 35 S. E. 153 (resistance); S. v. Phelps, 22 Wash. 181, 60 Pac. 134; Harvey v. S. (Miss. 1900), 26 So. 931; Wilcox v. S., 102 Wis. 650, 78 N. W. 763; P. v. Brown, 47 Cal. 447, 2 Green CR. 456; Tittle v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 38 S. W. 202; Darden v. S., 97 Ga. 407, 25 S. B. 676; Laco v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 38 S. W. 176; Hairston v. Com., 97 Va. 754, 32 S. E. 797; Tway v. S., 7 Wyo. 74, 50 Pac. 188; Arnett v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. App. 617, 51 S. W. 385; O'BOyle v. S., 100 Wis. 296, 75 N. W. 989; Gray- hill V. S. (Tex. Cr. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 851; Bohlmann v. S., 98 Wis. 617, 74 N. W. 343; S. v. McMillan, 20 Mont. 407, 51 Pac. 827; Ship v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 45 S. W. 909; Parnell v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 563; Maxfleld v. S., 54 Neb. 44, 74 N. W. 401; Kennon v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 376; Edmonson V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 44 S. W. 154; Bozeman v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 503, 31 S. W. 389; S. v. Biggs, 93 Iowa 125, 61 N. W. 417; S. v. Pilkington, 92 Iowa 92, 60 N. W. 502; Dorsey V. S., 108 Ga. 477, 34 S. B. 135. 'Greer v. S., 50 Ind. 267, 1 Am. C. R. 645; Dick v. S., 30 Miss. 631; S. V. Noble, 15 Me. 476; Hooker v. S., 4 Ohio 348; S. v. Jackson, 30 Me. 29; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 485. 'Ford V. S. (Tex. Cr. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 846. "S. V. Austin, 109 Iowa 118, 80 N. W. 303. § 360 RAPE. 93 trix was under twelve years of age, and that, on account of her tender years, she was incapable of understanding the nature, of the act, her consent would be no protection to the defendant." Held proper." § 360. Instruction — Caution. — "The charge made against the de- fendant is in its nature a most heinous one, and well calculated to create a strong prejudice against-the accused, and the attention of the jury is directed to the difficulty growing out of the nature of the usual circumstances of the crime in defending against the accusation of rape. So you, the jury, must carefully consider all the evidence in the case, and, the law, given. you by the court in, mafcing up your verdict." Held error to, refuse this instruction.^ 'Coates v. S., 50 Ark. 330, 7 S. an accusation easily made, hard to W. 304, 7 Am. C. R. 586. be proved, and still harder to be de- ' Reynolds v. S., 27 Neb. 90, 42 fended by one ever so innocent: 3 N. W. 903, 8 Am. C. R. 665; Conners Greenl. Ev., § 212; Sherwin v. P., V. S.. 47 Wis. 523, 2 N. W. 1143; 1 69 111. 58; Austine v. P., 51 111. 240; Hale P. C. (ed. 1778), 633. It is to S. v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65, 2 Green be remembered^ as has "been justly C. R. 593; 1 Hale P. C. 635. observed by Lord Hale, that rape is CHAPTEK VI. MAYHEM. Akt. I. Definition and Elements, ......§§ 361-365 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 366-367 III. Indictment, §§ 368-371 IV. Evidence, §§ 372-374 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 361. Definition. — Mayhem is properly defined to be, as we may remember, the violently depriving another of the use of such of his members -as may render him the less able in fighting, either to defend himself or to annoy his adversary.^ The biting of a person's ear is not mayhem at common law.^^ But feloniously and maliciously put- ting out the eye of another with malice aforethought is mayhem under the statute.^ "Every person who from premeditated design evinced by lying in wait for the purpose, or in any other manner with intent to kill or commit any felony, shall cut out or disable the tongue, or put out an eye, or shall slit the lips or destroy the nose, or cut off or disable any limb or other member of another, on purpose," shall be guilty of mayhem.' § 362. "Slit" and "bite."— The words "slit" and "bite" are not equivalent in meaning under the statute.* § 363. Specific intent not essential. — A specific intent, as under the common law, is not required. The accused shall be held responsible ' 4 Bl. Com. 205; 1 Hawk. P. C, ch. ' S. v. Baker (Mo.), 19 S. W. 222. 44, § 1; 1 East P. C. 393; UnderhiU "Godfrey v. P., 63 N. Y. 209; TuUy Cr. Bv., § 359; 1 McClaln Cr. L., v. P., 67 N. Y. 15. § 432. • P. V. Demasters, 105 Cal. 669, 39 ^a 58 Ohio St. 417, 51 N. B. 40. Pac. 35. (94) § 364 MAYHEM, 95 for the natural and probable consequences of his acts. The intent is a question for the jury, and may be inferred.'' ' § 364. Specific intent, when essential. — A specific intent is essen- tial in the charge of mayhem, and may be inferred or presumed if the accused did the act deliberately and the disfigurement was the natural .and probable consequence of the act.® § 365. Intent, to be determined. — Under the Texas statute, to "willfully and maliciously cut off or otherwise deprive a person of his hand, arm, toe, foot, leg, nose, ear; put out an eye or in any way deprive a person of any member of his body," constitutes mayhem. It appeared that the defendant kicked D on the arm while his thumb was in E's mouth, whereby a portion of his thumb was torn off. Held to be a question of fact for the jury to determine whether mayhem -was committed.'' Aeticle II. Matters of Defense. § 366. Intent wanting. — The defendant threw a stone at another which destroyed an eye. The mere throwing of the stone of itself in- dicates no intent to injure. Such injury is not a natural consequence •of the assault committed ; for the result though possible, must be rare, and may happen without, as well as with intent to injure. Generally such result would be merely accidental.* § 367. Injury inflicted suddenly. — The injury inflicted is none the less mayhem where the act is done maliciously with the design or in- tention of disfiguring or mutilating a member of one's body, though the act be done suddenly while in conflict with another." The prose- 'tJ. S. V. Gunther, 5 Dak. 234, 38 "S. v. Jones, 70 Iowa 505, 30 N. N. W. 79; Terrell v. S., 86 Tenn. 523, W. 750; Terrell v. S., 86 Tenn. 523, 8 S. W. 212, 8 Am. C. R. 532; Davis 8 S. W. 212; S. v. Ma Foo, 110 Mo. V. S., 22 Tex. App. 45, 2 S. W. 630; 7, 19 S. "W. 222; S. v. Clark, 69 Iowa S. V. Hair, 37 Minn. 351, 34 N. W. 196, 28 N. W. 537; Molette v. S., 49 893, 7 Am. C. R. 369; S. v. Clark, 69 Ala. 18. Iowa 196, 28 N. W. 537; P. v. Wright, ' Bowers v. S., 24 Tex. App. 542, 7 93 Cal. 564, 29 Pac. 240; Werley v. S., S. "W. 247. 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 171. See 4 Bl. » S. v. Bloedow, 45 Wis. 279, 2 Com. 206, 207; Underhill Cr. Ev., Am. C. R. 631; S. v. Cody, 18 Or. I 359. The common law, text writ- 506, 23 Pac. 891, 24 Pac. 895. ■ers and statutes are reviewed in the • S. v. Hair, 37 Minn. 351, 34 N. case of Terrell v. S., 86 Tenn. 523, 8 W. 893; S. v. Jones, 70 Iowa 505, 30 .S. W. 212. N. W. 750; Kitchens v. S., 80 Ga. 96 hughes' criminal law. §3.68 ./ cuting witness interfered to prevent a fight between the defendant and another person, and while trying to separate the combatants, the defendant suddenly threw his arm around the neck of the prosecuting witness and bit his ear off. Held to be mayhem; and the defendant's, belief that the prosecuting witness was against him in the fight, can not avail as a defense.^" Article III. Indictment, § 368. Assault included. — In an indictment for mayhem by goug- ing out the eye of a person, is included the offense of assault and bat- tery, or some other lesser offense may be included, according to the circumstances of the case.^^ § 369. "Premeditated design" essential. — Under the New York statute "premeditated design" and "on purpose" are elements of the crime of mayhem, and must be alleged in the indictment.^^ § 370. Duplicity — Several ways. — Under a statute providing that ^'Whoever shall unlawfully shoot or stab another with intention, in committing any of the said acts, to maim, disfigure, disable or kill," shall be guilty of mayhem, an indictment charging the intention in the conjunctive, by averring : "with intention to maim, disfigure, dis- able and kill," is not bad for duplicity.^' § 371. "Maliciously" and "willfully" essential.— The statute defin- ing mayhem uses the words "maliciously and willfully" in describing the offense. An indictment charging an offense under the statute for inflicting a wound less than mayhem, by alleging it was inflicted "feloniously," omitting the words "maliciously and willfully," is de- fective, and charges no offense on which to base a conviction or judg- ment on a plea of guilty.^* 810, 7 S. E. 209; Davis v. S., 22 " Guest v. S., 19 Ark. 405; Com. v. Tex. App. 45, 2 S. W. 630; P. v. Blaney, 133 Mass. 571; S. v. Waters, Wright, 93 Cal. 564, 29 Pac. 240. 39 Me. 54; S. v. White,, 45 Iowa 325; See S. V. Cody, 18 Or. 506, 23 Pac. Barnett v. S., 100 Ind. 171; S. v. 891, 24 Pac. 895; S. v. Skidmore, 87 Bloedow, 45 Wis. 279. N. C. 509; Rldenour v. S., 38 Ohio "TuUy v. P., 67 N. Y. 15; Godfrey St. 272. V. P., 63 N. Y. 207. " P. V. Wright, 93 Cal. 564, 29 Pac. " Angel v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 231. 240. See S. v. Cody, 18 Or. 506, 23 " S. v. Watson, 41 La. 598, 7 So. Pac. 891, 24 Pac. 895. . 125. § 372 MAYHEM. 9T Article IV. Evidence. § 372. Bnrden on prosecution. — Where the proseeution shows that the defendant inflicted an injury on the prosecuting witness, the bur- den is not shifted on the defendant to show that his act was justi- fiable." § 373. Intent inferred. — The intent to disfigure is prima facie to be inferred from an act which does in fact disfigure, unless the pre- sumption be repelled by evidence of a different intent, or at least the absence of the intent mentioned in the statute.^® § 374. Previous threats. — It is' competent to show that a few min- utes before the defendant actually assaulted the prosecutor, he threat- ened to make such assault.^'' •'S. V. Conahan, 10 Wash. 268, 38 240; S. v. Crawford, 2 Dev. (N. C.) Pac. 996. 425; Foster v. P., 1 Colo. 293. " S. V. Evans, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 281; " P. v. Demasters, 109 Cal. 607, 42 P. V. Wright, 93 Cal. 564, 29 Pac. Pac. 236. hughes' c. l. — 7 PART TWO OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTEE VII. LAKCEITT. :Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 375-404 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 405-426 III. Indictments, §§ 427-450 IV. Evidence, Variance, §§ 451-491 Article I. Definition and Elements. ■§ 375. Definition. — Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another.^ The stealing of goods above the value of twelve-pence is called grand larceny, under the common law; and when of goods to that value or under, is petit larceny.^ Under the statute of California, if the value of the property stolen exceeds fifty dollars, it is grand larceny ; and whether it be stolen from the person of another or not is not material.* And under the statute of Alabama defining grand larceny, the place from which the property was stolen is immaterial.* § 376. Stealing essential. — The word "stealing," as applied to lar- ceny, is a technical word, and is absolutely essential to a proper defini- tion of the crime, as defined by the statute of Illinois." § 377. Asportation sufficient. — Where the evidence shows that the defendant put his hands into the pocket of a man and took the man's " 4 Bl. Com. 229; 2 East P. C. 553; 'Turner v. S.. 124 Ala. 59, 27 So. 1 Hale P. C. 503; Johnson v. P., 113 272. 111. 99. " Hix V. P., 157 111. 385, 41 N. B. ' 4 Bl. Com. 229; 1 Hale P. C. 530. 862. Contra, S. v. Lee Yan Yan, 10 "P. v. Garcia, 127 Cal. xvili, 59 Or. 365. Pac. 576. (98) ^378 LARCENY. 99 pocketbook into his hand and drew it half way out, when, on being discovered, he let go his hold on the pocketbook and ran away, it was held sufficient asportation to sustain a conviction of larceny.* Where the accused was indicted for stealing cloth, and it was proved the cloth was packed in a bale, which was placed lengthwise in a wagon, and that the prisoner had only raised and set the bale on one end in the place where it lay, and had cut the wrapper but had not taken the -cloth out of the bale, it was held not to be larceny.'^ § 378. Secrecy essential. — While secrecy is the usual evidence of a felonious intent when one takes the goods of another, it is by no jneans the only evidence of such intent. The intent may be inferred from the facts proved.* The mere fact of taking the goods of an- other, without concealment, would be pregnant evidence to the jury that the taking was without felonious intent.^ § 379. Stealing stray animal. — In order to constitute larceny in permitting a stray heifer to stray and feed with one's own cattle, the -accused must have intended to appropriate the animal to his own use at the time he first took possession of it, and a conversion in pursu- ance of a subsequently formed intention would not make him guilty of larceny.^" § 380. Intention with act essential. — The intention to steal the property must accompany the act of taking it — that is, the criminal in- tent must exist at the very time of the taking of the property; other- Tvise the taking is not larceny.^^ But this rule does not apply to a 'Flynn v. S., 42 Tex. 301, 1 Am. Williams v. S., 63 Miss. 58, 57 Am. C. R. 424; S. v. Chambers, 22 "W. D. 272; S. v. Gilbert, 68 Vt. 188, Va. 779. See S. v. Taylor, 136 Mo. 34 Atl. 697. 66, 37 S. "W. 907; Harrison v. P., 59 "S. v. Powell, 103 N. C. 424, 9 S. N. Y. 518, 10 Am. R. 517; Price E. 627, 8 Am. C. R. 458; S. v. Fenn, V. S., 41 Tex. 215, 1 Am. C. R. 423; 41 Conn. 590, 1 Am. C. R. 379; S. v. ■Garris v. S., 35 Ga. 247; Madison v. McKee, 17 Utah 370, 53 Pac. 733. S., 16 Tex. App. 435; 3 Greenl. Bv., '3 Greenl. Bv., § 157. §§ 154, 155. See also Harrison v. " Starck v. S., 63 Ind. 285, 3 Am. P., 50 N. Y. 518; Com. v. Luckis, 99 C. R. 251; Umphrey v. S., 63 Ind. Mass. 431; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 548; 223; Reg. v. Matthews, 12 Cox C. C. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 154; S. v. Higglns, 489; Beckham v. S., 100 Ala. 15, 14 88 Mo. 354; Edmonds v. S., 70 Ala. 8, So. 859. See Lamb v. S., 40 Neb. 45 Am. R. 67; S. v. Craige, 89 312, 58 N. W. 963. N. C. 475, 45 Am. R. 696; Eckels v. "S. v. Wood, 46 Iowa 116; P. v. S., 20 Ohio St. 508. Moore, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 84; Weaver '3 Greenl. Ev., § 154. See 4 Bl. v. S., 77 Ala. 26; Levy v. S., 79 Ala. Com. 231; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 548; 259; S. v. Cummings, 33 Conn. 260, Hicks V. S., 101 Ga. 581, 28 S. 89 Am. D. 208; Keely v. S., 14 Ind". E. 917; P. V. Murphy, 47 Cal. 103; 36. See P. v. Taugher, 102 Mich. 100 hughes' criminal law. § 381 feailee or other person to whom property has been delivered and en- trusted for some specific purpose.^^ § 381. Pecuniary gain not essential. — Where the intent in taking^ property is to deprive the owner of the same, it is not essential that the taking should be with a view to pecuniary profit to the taker.^' § 382. Value is market value. — The value of a ehattelj as a statu- tory subject of larceny, is its market value; and evidence that it is worth twenty dollars to its owner, and worth nothing to anybody else, does not show its market value to be twenty dollars. To be of the mar- ket value of twenty dollars, it must be capable of being sold for that sum at a fairly conducted sale. A printed list of names not being a "writing containing evidence of an existing debt," does not come within the statute, and is not the subject of larceny.^* § 383. Adding values. — The value of sundry articles stolen at dif- ferent times and by distinct acts of larceny, although from the same person, can not be added together to make the offense grand larceny.^* § 384. Building, shop, store-house. — A building in which goods are sold or in which tools are kept, is a "shop" within the meaning of the statute relating to larceny in or from any store Dr shop.^° On a charge of larceny "from a store-house," it must appear that the house was actually used as a store-house at the time of the larceny : it is not sufficient that the house was built for a store-house.^'' 598, 61 N. "W. 66; P. v. Brown, 105 4 Bl. Com. 234; Payne v. P., 6 Johns. Cal. 66, 38 Pac. 518; Roberts v. S., 103; Rex v. Mead, 4 C. & P. 535; 21 Tex. App. 460, 1 S. W. 452; Reg. v. Morris, 9 C. & P. 347; 3 S. V. Woodrufe, 47 Kan. 151, 27 Pac. Greenl. Ev., § 153; S. v. Smith, 48 842. Iowa 595; Cooksie v. S., 26 Tex. App. "S. V. Coombs, 55 Me. 477, 92 Am. 72, 9 S. W. 58; S. v. Scott, 48 Iowa D. 610; S. V. Stone, 68 Mo. 101; 597. Dignowitty v. S., 17 Tex. 521; "Scarver v. S., 53 Miss. 407; Phelps V. P., 72 N. Y. 334. Rapalje on Larceny, § 13, p. 15; »»S. V. Slingerland, 19 Nev. 135, 7 Monoughan v. P., 24 111. 340; Lacey Pac. 280, 7 Am. C. R. 339; Hamilton v. S., 22 Tex. App. 657, 3 S. W. 343. v. S., 35 Miss. 219; S. v. Caddie, 35 "S. v. Hanlon, 32 Or 95, 48 Pac. W. Va. 73, 12 S. B. 1098; Dignowitty 353. See Bennett v. S., 52 Ala. 370; V. S., 17 Tex. 530. Contra, P. v. Com. v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, Woodward, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 57; 77 Am. D. 333; S. v. Moore, 38 Wilson V. P., 39 N. Y. 459; U. S. v. La. 66. And a store house includes Durkee, 1 McAU. 196. See 3 Greenl. a ware house: Bailey v. S., 99 Ala. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 157. 143, 13 So. 566. " S. v. James, 58 N. H. 67, 4 Am. " Jefferson v. S., 100 Ala. 59, 14 C. R. 348; S. v. Doepke, 68 Mo. 208; So. 627. ^ 385 LARCENY. 101 § 385. Possession, ownership. — Possession with general acts of ownership, such as riding a horse to a hotel and putting up as a guest, ■are sufficient to warrant and sustain a verdict, where there is no evi- dence offered to rebut or contradict the right of property.^^ An inn- keeper would acquire a sufficient special property to support an alle- gation of ownership.^* § 386. Possession, when constructive. — The owner of property may have constructive possession of it within the meaning of the law; as a horse on its accustomed range is in the possession of the owner ; and so where property is placed at some particular place and forgotten by "the owner.'"' § 387. Owner, general or special. — A superintendent of the planta- iion of another, properly speaking, is a servant of his employer, an overseer employed to carry on the business of the plantation according i:o directions, and whose duty it is to look after and take care of the interests of his employer. Such overseer is not regarded as having any special property in the thing of which he has such supervision.^^ § 388. Farm products, ownership. — Grain and other farm products raised on shares between the owner of the farm and his tenant or a laborer under a contract, belong to the owner of the farm until the same are divided.''^ ^ 389. Wild animals — ^Dogs. — ^Larceny can not be committed of such animals in which there is no property, either absolute or quali- fied, as of beasts that are ferae naturae, and unreclaimed, such as deer, hares and conies in a forest, chase or warren, or wild fowls at their natural liberty.^^ At common law the words "goods and chattels," on "Barnes v. P., 18 111. 53; S. v. "Com. v. Chace, 9 Pick. (Mass.) Patton, 1 Marv. (Del.) 552, 41 Atl. 15; 4 Bl. Com. 235; Aldnch v. 193. See Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), Wright, 53 N. H. 398; S. v. Repp 104 § 161; 1 McClaln Cr. L., § 546. Iowa 305, 73 N. W. 829; S. v. Knder, " Barnes v P 18 111 52. 78 N. C. 481. See also S. v. Murphy, ^ Huffman V. S., 28 Tex. App. 174, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 498; Harvey v. Com., 12 S W. 588; Lawrence v. S., 1 23 Gratt. (Va.) 941, 2 Green C. R. Humph. (Tenn.) 228, 34 Am. D. 644; 656; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 163. "Neither Pritchett v S 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 285, wild animals unclaimed and con- €2 Ain D 468- P V M'Garren, 17 fined nor things annexed to or savor- Wend ' (N Y )' 460; Owen v. S., 6 ing of the realty and unsevered" are Humph (Tenn ) 330. the subject of larceny by the com- ='Heygood v. S., 59 Ala. 50, 3 Am. mon law: Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), C R 253- S. V. Jenkins, 78 N. C. 163; 4 Bl. Com. 232. See also S. v. 478 'see note in 3 Am. C. R. 255. Berryman, 8 Nev. 262, 1 Green C. R. -S V Jacobs 50 La. 447, 23 So. 338; P. v. Williams, 35 Cal. 673; 608 (cotton); S. v. Webb, 87 N. C. Com v Steimling 176 Pa St 400 558. 27 Atl. 297; Clement v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 68S, 47 S. W. 450. 102 hughes' criminal law. § 390' a charge of larceny, do not include dogs. It will be time enough for the courts to say that a dog is the subject of larceny when the law- making power of the state has so declared.''* § 390. Water, when subject of larceny. — Water supplied by a water company to consumers may be the subject of larceny at com- mon law.^° § 391. Concealing for reward. — The wrongful taking of the prop- erty of another without his consent with intent to conceal it until a reward is offered by the owner, is larceny of the property.^® § 392. Getting possession by trick, fraud. — Any trick or fraud re- sorted to for the purpose of getting possession of another's property,, with intent to steal it, is larceny : as, for example, where the negotia- tion for goods was to be a cash transaction, the accused, by handing the collector a worthless check in payment, knowing it to be worthless, is- guilty of larceny.^'' The prosecutor was induced to place his money upon a game of chance upon the assurance of Lewis, one of the pris- oners, that he was to win, and he could have his money back, or that,, in case of loss, other money would be procured upon a check which Lewis claimed to have in his possession, and paid in place of that lost- Held larceny, the prosecutor not intending to part with the posses- sion or ownership of the money.^* Where the consent of the owner to- the taking of property has been obtained by fraud and deception, as getting possession under the pretense of hiring or borrowing with '"S. T. Lymus, 26 Ohio St. 400, 2 137 N. Y. 517, 33 N. E. 547; 3 Greenl. Am. C. R. 338; 4 Bl. Com. 23«; S. v. Ev., § 160; Devore v. Ter., 2 Okla. Butler (Del. 1899), 43 Atl. 480; P. v. 562, 37 Pac. 1092; P. v. Berlin, 9 Campbell, 4 Parker C. R. (N. Y.) Utah 383, 35 Pac. 498; Mitchell v. 386; S. V. Harriman, 75 Me. 562; S. S., 92 Tenn. 668, 23 S. W. 68; Flem- V. Holder, 81 N. C. 527; S. v. Doe, 79 ing v. S., 136 Ind. 149, 36 N. E. 154; Ind. 9; S. v. MoDuffie, 34 N. H. 523. Com. v. Lannan, 153 Mass. 287, 26 Contra, Hamby v. Samson, 105 Iowa N. E. 858; Defrese v. S., 3 Heisk. 112, 74 N. W. 918. (Tenn.) 33, 1 Green C. R. 356. =» Ferens v. O'Brien, L. R. 11 Q. B. '' Loomis v. P., 67 N. Y. 322, 2 Am. D. 21, 4 Am. C. R. 611. C. R. 345; Doss v. P., 158 111. 660, 41 ''"Berry v. S., 31 Ohio St. 219; N. E. 1093; Queen v. Gumble, 2 C Com. V. Mason, 105 Mass. 166; P. v. C. R. 1, 1 Am. C. R. 396; Com. v. Juarez, 28 Cal. 380; Keely v. S., 14 Lannan, 153 Mass. 287, 26 N. E. 858; Ind. 36; P. v. Wiley, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Miller v. Com., 78 Ky. 15. See Crum 194; Rex v. Cabbage, Russ. & R. v. S., 148 Ind. 401, 47 N. E. 833; S. 292; Baker v. S., 58 Ark. 513, 25 v. Bryant, 74 N. C. 124; P. v. S. W. 603. Shaughnessy, 110 Cal. 598, 43- '' Shipply V. P., 86 N. Y. 375; Stin- Pac. 2. son V. P., 43 111. 397; P. v. Laurence, §893 LARCENY. 103 intent to deprive the owner of the property, it is larceny.^* The prose- cutor having a cart loaded with onions, met the prisoners, who agreed to buy all the onions for three pounds sixteen shillings, the prisoners saying : "You shall have your money directly the onions are unloaded." The onions were accordingly unloaded by the prosecutor and the pris- oners together at the place designated by the prisoners. The prisoners, asked for a bill, and one of them said they must have a receipt from the prosecutor. They refused to pay the price or restore the onions. The jury convicted the prisoners, finding by their verdict that the prisoners never intended to pay for the onions. The conviction was sustained.^" The evidence in a case showed that the prosecuting wit- ness was induced to place his money in the hands of the defendant upon the assurance that he would have permanent employment, and. that the defendant and his confederate feloniously conspired to pro- cure the inoney so deposited and converted it to their own use. Held to be larceny.^^ §393. Changing bill, money. — The owner of a five-dollar bill handed the same to the accused, a hack driver, to get changed in order that he might pay the hack driver twenty-five cents out of the same,, being his charges for conveying him from the railroad depot to a hotel. The hack driver did not return, but appropriated the money to his own use. Held to be larceny. ^^ The accused was the daughter of a man who traveled about attending fairs with a merry-go-round, and was in charge of it. Marie Lovell got into the merry-go-round and handed the accused a sovereign in payment for the ride, asking for "S. V. Humphrey, 32 Vt. 569; Cal. 691, 53 Pac. 355; P. v. Mar- Coldwell V. S., 59 Tenn. 429; Loomis tin, 116 Mich. 446, 74 N. W. 653; S. V. P., 67 N. Y. 322; Richards v. Com., v. Will, 49 La. 1337, 22 So. 378. The 13 Gratt. 803; S. v. Woodruff, 47 case of P. v. Tomlinson is one where Kan. 151, 27 Eac. 842; P. v. Jersey, the defendants advertised in a news- 18 Cal. 337; P. v. Sumner, 53 N. Y. paper for a servant to work for Supp. 817, 13 N. Y. C. R. 318. them. They required a deposit with. ""Reg. v. Slowly, 12 Cox 269, 1 them to secure faithful service. Green C. R. 30; Frazier v. S., 85 ="Farrell v. P., 16 111. 506. See Ala. 17, 4 So. 691; Com. v. Lannan, Queen v. Hollis, 12 Q. B. D. 25, i 153 Mass. 289, 26 N. E. 858; S. v. Am. C. R. 609; Levy v. S., 79 Ala. Hall, 76 Iowa 85, 40 N. W. 107, 8 259; Finkelstein v. S., 105 Ga. 617, Am. C. R. 463; Q. v. Russett, 2 Q. B. 31 S. E. 589; Loomis v. P., 67 N. Y. D. 312, 9 Am. C. R. 514; Fleming v. 316, 23 Am. R. 123; Com. v. Plynn, S., 136 Ind. 149, 36 N. E. 154. See 167 Mass. 460, 45 N. E. 924; Hilde- P. v. Hughes, 91 Hun 354, 36 N. Y. brand v. P., 56 N. Y. 394; Murphy Supp. 493. V. P.,.104 111. 528; Justices v. P., 9a =' P. V. Tomlinson, 102 Cal. 22, 36 N. Y. 12, 43 Am. R. 135. Pac. 505. See P. v. Montarial, 120 104 hughes' criminal law, §394 her change. The accused handed her eleven pence, saying she would give her the balance when the ride was finished, as the merry-go-round was about to start. Marie assented to this, and about ten minutes after she -asked the accused for her change, and the accused said in re- ply that she had given her the change. Held that the accused could not be convicted for the larceny of the nineteen shillings because she had not taken the nineteen shillings from the prosecutrix.** § 394. Paid by mistake. — A bank by mistake paid the defend- ant five hundred dollars more than his check called for. Held that if at the time he so received the same he formed the criminal design to appropriate it to his own use, and did so appropriate it, it would be larceny.** § 395. Goods found. — If goods be found in the highway or else- where which contain no marks to identify the owner, the finder, in converting the same to his own use animus furandi, can not be guilty of larceny unless he knew the owner at the time he found the goods.^" § 396. Building includes. — The term "building" will include a structure covered with shingles and inclosed with wire, erected for the purpose of the safe keeping of birds, and stealing from this structure is "larceny from a building."^* But stealing from a "buggy shed" is not larceny from a "buggy shed house."" =»Reg. V. Bird, 12 Cox 257, 1 Green 337-8; Com. v. Titus, 116 Mass. 42, C. R. 1. See Hecox v. S., 105 Ga. 1 Am. C. R. 417; Reg. v. "VVood, 3 €25, 31 S. E. 592. Cox 453; Perrin v. Com., 87 Va. 554, "Pulcher v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. App. 13 S. E. 76; S. v. Hayes, 98 «21, 25 S. W. 625, 9 Am. C. R. 734; Iowa 619, 67 N. W. 673; Ransom v. Queen v. Ashwell, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. S., 22 Conn. 153; Lamb v. S., 40 190, 6 Am. C. R. 355. See Queen v. Neb. 312, 58 N. W. 963; Smith v. Flowers, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 643, 6 Am. S., 103 Ala. 40, 16 So. 12; Allen v. C. R. 388; Wolf stein v. P., 6 Hun S., 91 Ala. 19, 8 So. 665; Brooks v. (N. Y.) 121; Reg. v. Middleton, 12 S., 35 Ohio St. 46; S. v. Taylor, 25 Cox 260, 1 Green C. R. 7, 10; Bailey Iowa 273; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 159; V. S., 58 Ala. 414; S. v. Ducker, 8 Martinez v. S., 16 Tex." App. 122; Or. 394. See also. Com. v. Hays, 14 Hunt v. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) 757, Gray (Mass.) 62, 74 Am. D. 662. 70 Am. D. 443; Griggs v. S., 58 Ala. '"'Lane v. P., 5 Gilm. (111.) 308; 425; P. v. Swan, 1 Park. C. R. Tyler v. P., Breese (111.) 293; P. v. (N. Y.) 9; S. v. Boyd, 36 Minn. 538, Anderson, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 294; 32 N. W. 780. Bailey v. S., 52 Ind. 462, 3 Greenl. ™ Williams v. S., 105 Ga. 814, 32 Bv. 160; Starck v. S., 63 Ind. 285, S. E. 129. 3 Am. C. R. 251. See S. v. Levy, "Thompson v. S., 92 Ga. 448, 17 23 Minn. 104, 3 Am. C. R. 276; Baker S. E. 265. T. S., 29 Ohio St. 184. 2 Am. C. R. § 397 LARCENY. 105 § 397. larceny from house. — Evidence showing that the property- taken by the defendant was not in the warehouse, but outside of it in an alley, proves only simple larceny, and not "larceny from the house," or of goods hanging outside of a store.*' § 398. Larceny from person when asleep. — The defendant entered a store and asked that he be permitted to look at some watches. While the owner was showing the watches to him, the defendant stole two of them. Held to be lareency from the person of the owner and not "from the building."^" The defendant was in the act of taking the owner's pocketbook from the coat pocket of the owner. In fact, he had taken it from the space it occupied. The owner, by physical exer- tion in throwing up his arm, caught it as the accused was taking it, and regained possession of it. Held to be larceny.*" The mere fact that the owner of the property may have been asleep at the time the property was taken from him would render the crime no less a "taking from the person."*^ The taking from the person must be without the knowledge or consent of the owner.*^ § 399. Attempt, when impossible. — A person may be guilty of an attempt to commit larceny though it be impossible to actually com- mit the crime, as attempting to steal by picking one's pocket when it has nothing in it; also as to robbery.** To constitute an attempt to commit the crime of larceny, an overt act must be committed coupled ■with a criminal intent.** § 400. Servant's possession is master's. — It is now the settled law that goods in the bare charge or custody of a servant are legally in == Middleton v. S., 53 Ga: 248, 1 S.W. 911; Higgs v. S., 113 Ala. 36, 21 Am. C. R. 422; Martinez v. S., 41 So. 353; P. v. McElroy, 116 Cal. 583, Tex. 126, 1 Am. C. R. 420; Lynch v. 48 Pac. 718. S., 89 Ala. 18, 7 So. 829; Henry v. f'Moye v. S., 65 -Ga. 754, 57' Am. S., 39 Ala. 679. D. 273. See Burke v. S., 74 Ga. "Com. V. Lester, 129 Mass. 103; 372; Woodard v. S., 9 Tex. App. Rex v. Owen, 2 East P. C. 645. See 412. 4 Bl. "Com. 240; 1 McClain Cr. L., "P. v. Moran, 123 N. Y. 254 25 § 576; Com. v. Smith, 111 Mass. 429; N. E. 412; P. v. Gardner, 144 N. Y. Simmons v. S., 73 Ga. 609, 54 Am. 119, 38 N. B. 1003, 9 Am. C. R. 85; R. 885. • Clark v. S., 86 Tenn. 511, 8 S. W. "Harrison v. P., 50 N. Y. 518, 145; Hamilton v. S., 36 Ind. 280; S. citing Rex v. Thompson, 1 Moody v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; P. v. Jones 78; Com. v. Luckis, 99 Mass. 431. 46 Mich. 441, 9 N. W. 486; Reg v' See 3 Greenl. Bv., § 155; 4 HI. Com. Jarman, 14 Cox C. C. 112. 241. "S. V. Hollingsworth, 1 Marv. "Hall V. P., 39 Mich. 717. See (Del.) 528, 41 Atl. 143; Henry v Clemmons v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 279, 45 Com., 20 Ky. L. 543, 47 S. W 214 106 hughes' criminal law. §401 the possession of the master, and the servant may be guilty of tres- pass and larceny by the fraudulent conversion of such goods to his own use.*° It is not larceny for a servant to convert property delivered to him by a third person for his master, provided he converts it before the goods have reached their destination or something more has hap- pened to reduce him to a mere custodian.** The defendant, vs^ho was ■ employed as a servant, was directed by one member of the firm by which he was employed to take a siim of money to another member of the firm. He feloniously appropriated it to his own use. Held to be larceny and not embezzlement, he having only the custody of the money and not the legal or separate possession of it.*^ § 401. Carrier opening package. — If a carrier or other bailee opens a package of goods and takes away or disposes of them or any of them to his own use animus furandi, it is larceny, although it is not if he takes away and converts the whole package entire.*' Or if by any other means the bailee, by his wrongful act, terminates the eon- tract of bailment and converts the property or any part to his own use, he will be guilty of larceny.*' § 402. Three classes of eases of apparent possession. — There are three classes of cases in which convictions for larceny at common law are sustained where apparent possession is in the accused : first, where the accused has the mere custody of property as contradistinguished from possession, as in the case of servants and the like ; second, where he obtains the custody and apparent possession by means of fraud or with a present purpose to steal the property; and third, where one has acquired possession by a valid contract of bailment, which is «Crocheron v. S., 86 Ala. 64, 5 So. 20 Wis. 74; S. v. McCartey, 17 Minn. 649, 8 Am. C. R. 473; P. v. Perini, 76; Crocheron v. S., 86 Ala. 64, 5 So. 94 Cal. 573, 29 P. 1027; Holbrook v. 649; Brown v. P., 20 Colo. 161, 36 S., 107 Ala. 154, 18 So. 109; P. v. Pac. 1040; Smith v. S., 28 Ind. 321; 1 Wood, 2 Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 22; Hale P. C. 506; P. v. Belden, 37 Cal. Warmoth v. Com., 81 Ky. 133; S. 51. V. Schingen, 20 Wis. 74; Com. v. " S. v. Fairclough, 29 Conn. 47; Perry, 99 Mass. 428, 96 Am. D. 767. Nichols v. P., 17 N. Y. 114; Jenkins ^"Com. V. Ryan, 155 Mass. 527, 30 v. S., 62 Wis. 63, 21 N. W. 232; 3 N. B. 364, 31 Am. St. 56; Klbs v. Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 162; Rob- P., 81 111. 599; P. V. Johnson, 91 . inson v. S., 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 120, 78 Cal. 265, 27 Pac. 663; Reg. v. Brack- Am. D. 487; 4 Bl. Com. 230; U. S. v. ett, 4 Cox 274. Clew, 4 Wash. C. C. 700. "Com. v. Berry, 99 Mass. 430; "Com. v. Barry, 116 Mass. 1; Phelps V. P., 72 N. Y. 334; Rex v. Johnson v. P., 113 111. 99; Com. v. Murry, 1 Moody 276; S. v. Schingen, Davis, 104 Mass. 548. § 403 LARCENY. 107 subsequently terminated by some tortious act of the bailee or other- wise, whereby possession reverts to the owner, leaving the custody merely in the former, and the bailee, while being thus a mere cus- todian, feloniously converts the property to his own use."" § 403. Bailee converting — Constable. — Where a bailee, having a special property in goods, by reason of being under a special contract with respect to them, converts the same to his own use, no conviction of larceny can be had without proving a fraudulent or felonious in- tention on his part at the time he received the goods in bailment.^^ A sum of money was placed in the hands of the accused by the prose- cutor for the purpose of purchasing coals from a colliery company. The prisoner did not buy any coals, but used part of the money to pay his own indebtedness to the company. Held to be a clear case of lar- ceny as bailee.^^ A horse was intrusted with the defendant to sell for the prosecutor and to deliver the proceeds of the sale to the prose- cutor. The defendant, after selling the horse, converted the proceeds of the sale to his own use. He became bailee of the money and was guilty of larceny as bailee.^* A constable seized goods on an execu- tion put in his hands, sold the same at private sale, contrary to law, and converted the proceeds to his own use. Held not guilty of larceny as bailee, the general property in the goods being in the judg- ment debtor until sold according to law.^* § 404. Owner — Stealing. — A general owner of property may be guilty of larceny in stealing it from a special owner ; as, where a con- stable has seized and levied upon property by virtue of an execution, the owner in taking the property from the constable with the fraudu- lent design of charging the constable with the value of it, commits larceny.'^ "Johnson v. P., 113 111. 103, 105. B. D. 29, 4 Am. C. R. 602; Bergman " Crocheron v. S., 86 Ala. 64, 5 v. P., 177 111. 244, 52 N. B. 363. So. 649, 8 Am. C. R. 474; S. V. Stone, "Zschocke v. P., 62 111. 128 2 68 Mo. 101, 3 Am. C. R. 278; P. v. Green C. R. 560; Kibs v. P 81 'ill Campbell, 127 Cal. 278, 59 Pac. 593. 600. See 1 McClain Cr. L. § 554 See P. V. DeGraaff, 127 Cal. 676, 60 == Adams v. S., 45 N. J. L. 449* 4 Pac. 429; Slemers v. S. (Tex. Cr. Am. C. R. 331; P. v. Stone 16 Cal 1900), 55 S. W. 334. 369; P. v. Long, 50 Mich. 249 15 n' ""Reg. v. Aden, 12 Cox 512, 1 W. 105; Com. v. Green, 111' Mass' Green C. R. 47. See Reg. v. Hollo- 392; S. v. Webb, 87 N. C. 558; White- way, 18 Cox C. C. 631. side v. Lowney, 171 Mass. 431 50 N "^ Queen v. DeBanks, L. R. 13 Q. E. 931; Com. v. Shertzer, 3 Lack, l' N. (Pa.) 8; S. v. Fitzpatrick', 9- 108 hughes' criminal law. §405 Article II. Matters op Defense. § 405. When false pretense. — If the owner parts with the posses- sion and title of his goods or money, then neither the taking nor the conversion is felonious; it amounts to a fraud only; it is obtaining goods by false pretense. But if he parts with possession only, it is larceny.^* § 406. Taking to secure claim. — Where a person having the care and control of the property of his employer, takes it in good faith to secure his wages, or claim due him from his employer, he will not be guilty of larceny, although his claim may be disputed."^ § 407. Intent essential. — The defendant may show that he took the property, not to steal it, but to aid him in making his escape from arrest, and he may show that he carried with him a friend by whom the property was returned. °' § 408. Believing to be Ms own. — On a charge of larceny the de- fendant has a right to show that he took the property in question in good faith, believing at the time that it belonged to him.°* Houst. (Del.) 385, 32 Atl. 1072; S. Ind. 223, 3 Am. C. R. 248; S. v. V. Powell, 34 Ark. 693. Davis, 38 N. J. L. 176, 1 Am. C. R. »» Welsh V. P., 17 111. 339; Stlnson 398. V. P., 43 111. 398; Murphy v. P., 104 ="8. v. Dillon, 48 La. 1365, 20 So. 111. 533; P. V. Tomllnson, 102 Cal. 913. See Lucas v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 20, 36 Pae. 506; Bailey v. S., 58 Ala. 290, 26 S. W. 213; Robinson v. 414; Com. v. Barry, 124 Mass. 325; S., 113 Ind. 510, 16 N. B. 184; John- State V. Anderson, 25 Minn. 66; P. son v. S., 36 Tex. 375, 1 Green C. R. V. Abbott, 53 Cal. 284; P. v. Mc- 347; Hart v. S., 57 Ind. 102; Will- Donald, 43 N. Y. 61; Hildebrand v. iams v. S., 26 Ala. 85. P., 56 N. Y. 394; Steward v. P., 173 »»Dean v. S. (Fla. 1899), 26 So. 111. 464, 50 N. E. 1056; Johnson v. 638; Hunter v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), P., 113 111. 106; Haley v. S., 49 Ark. 37 S. W. 323; Baker v. S., 17 Fla. 147, 4 S. W. 746, 7 Am. C. R. 333; 406; Black v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. Kellogg V. S., 26 Ohio St. 15; Loomis 58, 41 S. W. 606; Vance v. S., 34 Tex. V. P., 67 N. Y. 329; S. v. Will, 49 La. Cr. 395, 30 S. W. 792; Barnes 1337, 22 So. 378; S. v. Skinner. 29 Or. v. S., 103 Ala. 44, 15 So. 901; Brooks 599, 46 Pac. 368; Miller v. Com., 78 v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 27 S. W. 141; Ky. 15, 39 Am. R. 194; 'Zink v. P., 77 S. v. Johnson, 49 Iowa 141; S. v. N. Y. 114, 33 Am. R. 589. Holmes, 17 Mo. 379, 57 Am. D. 269; "P. V. Eastman, 77 Cal. 171, 19 S. v. Thompson, 95 N. C. 596; Dis- Pac. 266; Phelps v. P., 55 111. 337; P. muke v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 20 S. W. V. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 580, 45 N. W. 562. See Com. v. Green, 111 Mass. 484; Durrett v. S., 62 Ala. 434. See 392; P. v. Devine, 95 Cal. 227, 30 Pac. S. V. Waltz, 52 Iowa 227, 2 N. W. 378; Morningstar v. S., 55 Ala. 148. 1102; S. V. Sherman, 55 Mo. 83, 2 Bullard v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 270, 50 S. Green C. R. 613; Reg. v. Waller, 10 W. 348. Cox C. C. 360; Umphrey v. S., 63 § 409 LARCENY. 109 § 409. Believing to be worthless. — The defendant took some old records which he found stored in a barn; he took them as old paper without knowledge of their character, believing them to be worthless and abandoned. Held not guilty of larceny.*" § 410. Taking by mistake. — If one innocently takes another's prop- erty by mistake and afterward converts it to his own use, it is not lar- ceny.*^ § 411. Husband appropriating wife's goods. — The hus^nd does not commit larceny in appropriating the property of his wife to his own use, nor does the wife, in appropriating her husband's property, feven though she may have committed adultery in violation of her marriage contract. They are one person, in law.*" "Suppose the wife did consent to the taking away of the property of her husband (whom she had repudiated) , if the accused took it with the felonious intent of depriving the husband of it, her consent, when she had repudiated her relation of wife, would not help it."*' § 412. Possession alone Insufficient. — Mere possession of stolen property alleged to have been stolen will not sustain a conviction. It must be shown that the property has been stolen, before the burden of accounting for the possession of it is imposed on the defendant.** § 413. Legal custodian appropriating. — At common law, where a party is in legal custody of the property of another, he can not com- mit larceny of it, although he should fraudulently appropriate it to his own use.*" § 414. Joint owner — Tenant appropriating. — A person owning property jointly with others can not be guilty of stealing it unless the "U. S. V. DeGroat, 30 Fed. 764; Cox 396; P. v. Schuyler, 6 Cowen S. V. Swayze, 11 Or. 357, 3 Pac. 574. (N. Y.) 572. See 3 Greenl. Ev., § 158. »^ P. v. Miller, 4 Utah 410, 11 Pac. "Smathers v. S., 46 Ind. 449; 514. Hunt v. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) 757; "^ Queen v. Kenny, 2 Q. B. D. 307, S. v. Furlong, 19 Me. 225; S. v. 3 Am. C. R. 451; Beasley v. S., 138 Tucker, 76 Iowa 232, 40 N. W. 725; Ind. 552, 38 N. B. 35; Thomas v. P. v. Williams, 57 Cal. 108. Thomas, 51 111. 165; Queen v. Brit- '''S. v. Butler, 21. S. C. 353, 5 tleton, 12 Q. B. D. 266, 4 Am. C. R. Am. C. R. 208; Com. v. Ryan, 155 605; "Watklns v. S., 60 Miss. 323. Mass. 523, 30 N. E. 364; Com. v. °»P. V. Swalm, 80 Cal. 46, 22 Pac. King, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 284; P. v. 67, 8 Am. C. R. 480; P. v. Cole, McDonald, 43 N. Y. 61; Reg. v. Betts, 43 N. Y. 508; Rex v. Flatman, 14 Bell 90. i.10 hughes' criminai/ law. § 415 person or persons from whom it was taken was entitled to the ex- clusive possession of it."" The defendant, an attornej', sold property for his client and was entitled, by contract, to compensation out of the proceeds to the amount of ten dollars for his services. He sold the property and appropriated the entire sum. Held guilty of lar- ceny, he having no property in the whole sum when it was not yet divided."^ A tenant by contract having a half interest in corn raised by him on the farm of his landlord, can not be convicted of larceny "in appropriating to his own use the entire crop of corn, they being joint owners."* § 415. Breach of trust only. — The defendant was authorized to sell a lot for the owner and loan the money received therefor at inter- est for the owner. He sold the lot, but instead of loaning the money as instructed, he lost it at gaming. This was not larceny at common lav?, the prosecutor never having had possession of the money at any time."' § 416. Value of property. — Bonds, bills and notes, which concern mere choses in action, were at the common law held not to be such goods whereof larceny might be committed, being of no intrinsic value, and not importing any property in possession of the person from whom they were taken.'" § 417. Eailroad ticket. — A railroad ticket which is not signed, stamped and dated is worthless and not the subject of larceny.'^ § 418. Owner's unlawful conduct. — The defendant offered to show on the trial that the owner of the property stolen had made a fraudu- lent mortgage on it, and had been indicted therefor. Held no de- fense.'" § 419. Several owners — One offense. — If a person steal divers arti- cles of property at the same time and place, owned by the same person "Fairy v. S., 18 Tex. App. 314. "Kibs v. P., 81 111. 601, citing See Morrisette v. S., 77 Ala. 71; Whar. Cr. L. (7th ed.), § 1830. Phelps V. S., 109 Ga. 115, 34 S. E. ™4 Bl. Com. 234; 2 Bish. Cr. L. 210. (new ed.), § 769; 1 McClain Cr. L., "Com. V. Lannan, 153 Mass. 287, § 543. 26 N. E. 858. " McCarty v. S., 1 Wash. St. 377, ""S. V. McCoy, 89 N. C. 466; S. v. 25 Pac. 299. Copeland, 86 N. C. 691. See Bell " Gillespie v. P., 176 111. 238, 52 N. V. S., 7 Tex. App. 25. E. 250. <§ 420 LARCENY. Ill •or different persons, his indictment, trial and conviction for the lar- ceny of any one of such articles will bar a prosecution for the theft 'Of the others.^^ § 420. Jeopardy — ^When one offense. — An acquittal under an in- dictment for breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to •steal, is a bar to a second indictment for grand larceny, if the larceny formed part of the same transaction as the burglary.''* Although the j)roperty stolen belonged to distinct persons, it having been taken at ihe same time and place, constituted but one offense.''^ § 421. Two offenses — One occasion. — Stealing the property of two . -different persons in the same room on the same occasion where the property of one was in one part of the room, and the goods of the other in another part of the room so that the goods of each could not he taken at the same moment of time, constitute two different of- ienses.'° § 422. Jeopardy — Splitting transaction. — Where a person has been properly tried and convicted in a justice court for stealing "from the person," being a misdemeanor over which the justice had jurisdiction, "this is a bar to an indictment on the same transaction for stealing, "from the person," under a statute making it a felony.'^ An acquittal on a charge of larceny is a bar, not only to an indictment for the larceny of the property, but also for any other offense of which such larceny is an essential element, which includes robbery.'* "S. V. Nelson, 29 Me. 329; 1 Hale S. W. 84; Turner v. S., 22 Tex. App. P. C. 531; Hudson v. S., 9 Tex. App. 42, 2 S. W. 619; Gordon v. S., 151; Slmco v. S., 2 Cr. L. Mag. 30; 71 Ala. 315; S. v. Bruffey, 75 Mo. S. V. MeCormack, 8 Or. 236, 2 Cr. 389. L. Mag. 112; Ackerman v. S., 7 " S. v. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 26 Atl. Wyo. 504, 54 Pac. 228; United States 500; Pulmer v. Com., 97 Pa. St. 503; T. Lee, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 446; S. v. S. v. Hennessey, 23 Ohio St. 339; S. Congrove, 109 Iowa 66, 80 N. W. v. Merrill, 44 N. H. 624; 2 Bast P. C, 227; S. V. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 5 § 136. Am. C. R. 75, 3 Pac. 346; Bell v. S., "Phillips v. S., 85 Tenn. 551, 3 42 Ind. 335; Wilson v. S., 45 Tex. S. W. 434, 7 Am. C. R. 318. 77, 2 Am. C. R. 356. See also, Lowe " S. v. Gleason, 56 Iowa 203, 9 N. V. S., 57 Ga. 171, 2 Am. C. R. 344; W. 126; S. v. Wiles, 26 Minn. 381, 4 Lorton v. S., 7 Mo. 55, 37 Am. D. N. W. 615 ; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 575. 179; S. V. Bynum, 117 N. C. 752, 23 "S. v. Mikesell, 70 Iowa 176, 30 S. E. 219; S. v. Emery, 68 Vt. 109, N. W. 474; Com. v. Curtis, 11 Pick. 34 AtL 432; S. v. English, 14 Mont. (Mass.) 134. See S. v. Wiles, 26 399, 36 Pac. 815. Minn. 381, 4 N. W. 615, 2 Am. C. R. "Triplett v. Com., 84 Ky. 198, 1 621. 112 hughes' ckiminal law. §42iJ § 423. Property found. — ^A general belief among the people that property found without marks to indentify it belongs to the finder, is no defense to a charge of larceny.'^* § 424. Minor stealing. — That the defendant was a minor and acted under the direction and control of his mother or another, is no de- fense.*" § 425. Giving consent, is defense. — It is for the defendant to show as a matter of defense that the owner of the property gave his consent to the taking of the property alleged to have been stolen.*^ § 426. Venue — What county — Or state. — A person may be indicted in any county where found in possession of the stolen goods. He is guilty of stealing in any county or place where he has the goods.** There are many cases holding that a state, into which stolen goods are carried by a thief from another state, has no jurisdiction of larceny of the goods; and a fortiori if the goods were stolen in a foreign country.** Article III. Indictment. § 427. Description of property. — An indictment charging the lar- ceny of several articles of property, in the same count, at the same time, which sufficiently describes some of the articles, is good, though the others are not sufficiently described.** "S. v. Welch, 73 Mo. 284, 39 Am. Com. 305; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), R. 515. § 152. «° P. V. Richmond, 29 Cal. 414. «= Stanley v. S., 24 Ohio St. 166, "Holmes v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 370, 2 Am. C. R. 353; P. v. Gardner, 2 42 S. W. 979. See Hoskins v. S. Johns. (N. Y.) 477; S. v. LeBlanch, (Tex. Cr. App.), 43 S. W. 1003. 2 Vroom (N. J.) 82; Simmons v. ■^Stinson v. P., 43 111. 400; P. Com., 5 Binn. (Pa.) 617; Simpson v. V. Burke, 11 Wend. 129; Myers v. S., 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 456; Beal v. P., 26 111. 176; Com. v. Andrews, 2 S., 15 Ind. 378; S. v. Reonnals, 14 Mass. 114; Baker v. S., 58 Ark. 513, La. 278; Lee v. S., 64 Ga. 203, 37 25 S. W. 603, 9 Am. C. R. 456. On Am. D. 67; Watson v. S., 36 Miss, receiving, Allison v. Com., 83 Ky. 593; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 152. 254, 7 Am. C. R. 301; Johnson v. S., Contra, S. v. Bartlett, 11 Vt. 650; S. 47 Miss. 671, 1 Green C. R. 341. See v. Underwood, 49 Me. 181; S. v. Stanley v. S., 24 Ohio St. 166, 2 Am. Bennett, 14 Iowa 479; S. v. Johnson, C. R. 352; Bryant v. S., 116 Ala. 2 Or. 115; Reg. v. Hennessy, 35 U. C. 445, 23 So. 40; S. v. Johnson, 2 Or. Q. B. 603, 1 Am. C: R. 411. 115; P. v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531; S. v. «Reid v. S., 88 Ala. 36, 6 So. 840. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161 ; Thomas v. See S. v. Anderson, 42 La. 590, 7 So. Com., 12 Ky. L. 903, 15 S. W. 861; S. 687; Shaffer v. S., 74 Ind. 90. See V. McCoy, 42 La. 228, 7 So. 330; 4 Bl. Haskins v. P., 16 N. Y. 314. § 428 LARCENY, 113 § 428. Description of property. — An indictment charging the de- fendant with stealing "one book of the value of six dollars," is suffi- cient description of the property, though general.'" An indictment describing the stolen property as "four pairs of shoes, four pairs of pants, one lot of jewelry, one lot of shirts and cravats," is sufficient description of the property.*" An indictment charging the larceny of "fifty ears of corn, the same being a part of an outstanding crop of corn," the property of the owner, is sufficient.*^ § 429. Description of animal. — On a charge of horse stealing, the- indictment, in alleging that the defendant feloniously took and car- ried away "one horse," then and there the property of a person, naming him, is sufficient description."* An indictment describing the stolen property as "a certain hog," is sufficient description of the animal — without stating the color, kind, weight, mark or brand; and so, "one eow" is sufficient description.*" § 430. Description of money. — An indictment charging the larceny of "sixty dollars United States currency," or "divers bank bills," is- sufficient description of the money where it alleges that the number and denomination of the pieces of such money were to the grand jurors unknown.®" In an indictment for larceny, neither the number nor de- » Turner v. S., 102 Ind. 426, 1 N. (Ind. Ter.), 38 S. W. 331; Oats v.. B. 869; Waller v. P., 175 111. 221, 51 U. S. (Ind. Ter.), 38 S. W. 673; S. v. N. B. 900; P. V. Burns, 121 Cal. 529, Stelly, 48 La. 1478, 21 So. 89. See- 53 Pac. 1096; S. v. Carter, 33 La. S. v. Brookhouse, 10 Wash. 87, 38 1214; S. V. Labauve, 46 La. 548, 15 Pac. 862; Nightengale v. S., 94 Ga. So.' 172; Palmer v. S., 136 Ind. 393, 395, 21 S. E. 221; Barnes v. S., 40 36 N. B. 130; Churchwell v. S., 117 Neb. 545, 59 N. W. 125; S. v. Hoff- Ala. 124, 23 So. 72; Peters v. S., 100 man, 53 Kan. 700, 37 Pac. 138. Ala. 10, 14 So. 896; 2 Bish. Cr. Pro. =»P. v. Stanford, 64 Cal. 27, 28: (3d ed.), § 700; S. v. Martin, 82 N. Pac. 106; S. v. Crow, 107 Mo. 341, IT C. 672; P. V. Freeman, 1 Idaho 322; S. W. 745. See S. v. White, 129 Ind. Grlssom v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 146, 153, 28 N. E. 425; S. v. Baden 49 S. W. 93; S. v. Logan, 1 Mo. 532. 42 La. 295, 7 So. 582; P. v. Warren, But see McCowan v. S., 58 Ark. 17, 130 Cal. 683, 63 Pac. 86; P. v. Ma- 22 S. W. 955. chado (Cal. 1900), 63 Pac. 68. "S. V. Curtis, 44 La. 320, 10 So. '"Leonard v. S., 115 Ala. 80 '2 784; Powell v. S., 88 Ga. 32, 13 S. E. So. 564; Ter. v. Anderson, 6 Dak 829; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. 300, 50 N. W. 124; Travis v. Com W. 69. , 96 Ky. 77, 27 S. W. 863. See Davi;-i' " Schamberger v. S., 68 Ala. 543; v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 377, 23 S. W. 794- Com. V. Pine, 2 Pa. L. J. R. 154; S. v. S. v. Hoke, 84 Ind. 137; S. v. Tilne-^ Ballard, 97 N. C. 443, 1 S. B. 685. 38 Kan. 714, 17 Pac. 606; Merrill v' »'McBride v. Com., 76 Ky. 337; S., 45 Miss. 651; Hart v. S., 55 Ind S. v. Friend, 47 Minn. 449, 50 599; Croker v. S., 47 Ala. 53; Garden N . W. 692; Mizell v. S., 38 v. S., 89 Ala. 130, 7 So. 801; Green v Fla. 20, 20 So. 769; Oxier v. U. S. S., 28 Tex. App. 493, 13 S. W. 784. hughes' c. l.— 8 114 hughes' criminal law. § 430 nomination of bank notes stolen need be specified, nor need it be stated that their number or denomination was to the grand Jurors unknown. "Sundry bank bills, current within said commonwealth amounting to the sum of two hundred and ten dollars of the goods, chattels and money of one Patrick Dorsey," is sufficient.'^ An indictment alleged the larceny of "seven national bank bills, each of the denomination of twenty dollars ;" held sufficient description, and that it was not neces- sary to state the name of the bank issuing the bills nor to allege that the bills were genuine.'^ The indictment in describing the money as ■"twelve five dollars and one ten dollars notes, to-wit: United States promissory or bank notes of the value of seventy dollars," was held sufficient description.'^ An indictment describing the money as "United States paper currency money" includes treasury notes, com- monly called "greenbacks," silver certificates and gold certificates.'* Considerable latitude should be allowed in charging the larceny of money, because where a parcel consisting of a great number of notes or coins is stolen, and has not been recovered, the owner will generally be unable to specify with legal certainty the bills and coins taken.'^ A general description of the property, as "sundry bank bills, issued by au- thority of the United States of America, usually known as 'green- backs,' amounting in all to one hundred and eighty dollars, or in the aggregate to five hundred and eighty-nine dollars," is plainly not sufficient description.'^ Describing the money alleged to have been stolen as "one hundred dollars," is not sufficient, without a reason for a better description.'^ " S. V. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 Am. "Keating v. P., 160 111. 486, 43 N. C. R. 110, 111; Com. v. Stebblns, 8 E. 724; S. v. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, Gray (Mass.) 492; Com. v. Sawtelle, 3 Am. C. R. 109; S. v. TUney, 38 11 Cush. 142; S. v. Taunt, 16 Minn. Kan. 714, 17 Pac. 606; S. v. Patton, 109. See Haskins v. P., 16 N. Y. 1 Marv. (Del.) 554, 41 Atl. 193; 344; S. V. Palmer, 20 Wash. 207, 54 Wesley v. S., 61 Ala. 282; S. v. An- Pac. 1121; Wilson v. S., 66 Ga. 591; derson, 25 Minn. 66. See Riggs v. Grant v. S., 55 Ala. 201. Contra, S., 104 Ind. 261, 3 N. E. 886, 6 Am. Hamblett v. S., 18 N. H. 384. C. R. 394. ■« S. v. Stevens, 62 Me. 284, 2 Green " Ter. v. Shipley, 4 Mont. 468, 2 C R. 481; S. V. Evans, 15 Rich. (S. Pac. 313, 4 Am. C. R. 492; Merwin C.) 31. v. P., 26 Mich. 298. Contra, S. " Bell V. S., 41 Ga. 589; S. v. Boyce, v. Burns, 19 Wash. 52, 52 Pac. 316. «5 Ark. 82, 44 S. W. 1043; Kelley "Barton v. S., 29 Ark. 68, 2 Am. V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 412, 31 S. W. C. R. 340; Brown v. P., 173 111. 37, 174. See Goldstein v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 50 N. E. 106; Jackson v. S., 34 Tex. 23 S. W. 686. Cr. 90, 29 S. W. 265; S. v. "Rucker v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 Oakley. 51 Ark. 112, 10 S. W. 17; S. W. 65. See Ex parte Prince, 27 Merwin v. P., 26 Mich. 298, 1 Green Fla. 196, 9 So. 659; Randall v. S., 53 C. R. 349; S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 846. N. J. L. 485, 22 Atl. 45. Contra, Randall v. S., 132 Ind. 539, ^ 431 LARCENY. 115 § 431. Describing money — Coin. — An indictment charging the lar- ceny of coin should describe the coin as so many pieces of gold or silver, giving the name or denomination. But where the description is unknown then a general description will answer, such as so many dollars in specie, coin of the United States, the denomination and de- scription of which is to the grand jury unknown.'* An indictment alleging the larceny of "four dollars and fifty cents, specie coin of the United States, the denomination and description of which is to the ^rand jury unknown," sufficiently describes the property.'® § 432. Describing notes, checks. — An indictment charging the lar- ceny of "ten promissory notes, for the payment of divers sums of money, amounting in all to fifty dollars of the value of fifty dollars," sufficiently describes the notes.^"" An indictment for larceny describ- ing the property as "one paper, purporting to be a cheek for the pay- ment of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, of the value of one hun- dred and twenty-five dollars, the goods and chattels" of the owner, is sufficient.^ § 433. Aggregating values. — An indictment is sufficient in alleging the separate value of the several articles stolen without stating the ag- gregate value ; or in stating the aggregate value of all the articles with- out stating the separate value of each.^ 32 N. E. 103; S. v. Fisher, 106 Iowa S. E. 182; Com. v. Brettun, 100 Mass. €58. 77 N. W. 456; Wofford v. S., 206, 97 Am. D. 95. 29 Tex. App. 536, 16 S. W. 535; S. v. ' Com. v. Collins. 138 Mass. 483, Green, 27 La. 598. See S. v. Han- 5 Am. C. R. 345; S. v. Hart, 29 Iowa shew, 3 Wash. 12, 27 Pac. 1029. 268; S. v. Kelliher, 32 Or. 240, 50 Under a statute for the larceny of Pac. 532; S. v. O'Connell, 144 Mo. any note of any bank "of this or any 387, 46 S. W. 175; Edson v. S., 148 •other state" the indictment need not Ind. 283, 47 N. E. 625; S. v. Shelton, allege that the note was of any par- 90 Tenn. 539, 18 S. W. 253; S. v. ticular bank: Foster v. S., 71 Md. Brew, 4 Wash. 95, 29 Pac. 762; 553, 18 Atl. 972. P. v. Robles, 34 Cal. 591; Jackson ''Lord v. S., 20 N. H. 404; Croker v. S., 69 Ala. 249; Com. v. Grimes, V. S., 47 Ala. 53; S. v. Rush, 95 Mo. 76 Mass. 470, 71 Am. D. 666. Contra, 199, 8 S. W. 221; P. v. Ball, 14 Cal. as to aggregate value: Hamblett v. 101; P. V. Bogart, 36 Cal. 245; For- S., 18 N. H. 384. The legislature ter V. S., 26 Fla. 56, 7 So. 145. has power to enact a law which "Boiling V. S., 98 Ala. 80, 12 So. might prevent the stealing or em- 782; Porter v. S., 26 Fla. 56, 7 So. bezzling of an article which has 145. no value, and impose a penalty for "°P. V. Jackson, 8 Barb, (N. Y.) a violation of such law: McDaniels «37. V. P., 118 111. 302, 8 N. E. 687. ^Whalen v. Com., 90 Va. 544, 19 116 hughes' criminal law. § 434 § 434. Value not an element. — Under a statute making it larceny to steal a horse or other animal, or other property, without reference to the value of the property, an indictment need not allege the value.' The indictment need not aver the value of a railroad ticket under the- Illinois statute, the value not being an element of the crime.* § 435. Ownership of property. — The indictment, in charging th» larceny of property, may lay the ownership to be in either the general 'jwner or special owner, at the election of the pleader. If, for example, Ihe property is stolen from a common carrier, the indictment may al- lege the ownership to be in the common carrier or the general owner or both in different counts.^ The property stolen must be laid to be in some one who has a property of some kind in the same, who has the general property in him, or who has a special property. It is not sufficient to charge it to be the property of one who is a mere servant, although he may have actual possession at the time of the larceny; as where the property was owned by the railroad and not by its agent at its depot, who had possession of the goods at the time of the lar- ceny.* § 436. Company as owner. — If the property is owned by a company, or by several different persons not incorporated, then the name of each owner must be alleged.'^ An indictment alleging the property to be = Hoge V. P., 117 111. 35, 6 N. E. Am. C. R. 336; Edson v. S., 148 Ind. 796; Hughes v. Ten, 8 Okla. 28, 56 283, 47 N. E. 625; S. v. Lewis, 49 Pac. 708; S. v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 551), La. 1207, 22 So. 327; Kennedy v. S., 45 Pac. 147; Chesnut v. P., 21 Colo. 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; S. v. Mc- 512, 42 Pac. 656; S. v. Hill, 46 La. Rae, 111 N. C. 665, 16 S. B. 173; 736, 15 So. 145; Ter. v. Pendry, 9 Fowler v. S., 100 Ala. 96, 14 So. 860; Mont. 67, 22 Pac. 760; S. v. Bowers S. v. Somerville, 21 Me. 14; Bll- (Mc), 1 S. W. 288; P. v. Townsley, lard v. S., 30 Tex. 367, 94 Am. D. 39 Gal. 405. See S. v. Young, 13 317. Wash. 584, 43 Pac. 881; S. v. Web- " S. v. Jenkins, 78 N. C. 478, 4 ster, 156 Mo. 257, 56 S. W. 893. Am. C. R. 336; Phillips v. S. (Tex. "McDaniels v. P., 118 111. 303, 8 Cr.), 42 S. W. 557; Crook v. N. B. 687. See Hoge v. P., 117 111. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 252, 45 S. W. 35, 6 N. B. 796. See also Wells v. 720; Pratt v. S., 3^ Ohio St. 514; S., 11 Neb. 409, 9 N. W. 552; S. v. Reed v. Com., 7 Bush (Ky.) 641; Small, 26 Kan. 209; Sheppard v. S., Long v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 42 Ala. 531; S. v. Sharp, 106 Mo. 576. 106, 17 S. W. 225. But see P. v. 'Wallace v. P., 63 111. 452; 1 Whar. Belcher, 58 Mich. 325, 25 N. W. 303. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 941; McCowan "Murphy v. P., 104 111. 534; S. v. v. S., 58 Ark. 17, 22 S. W. 955. Gorham, 55 N. H. 156, 165; S. v. Contra, S. v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 303, 3 O'Connell, 144 Mo. 387, 46 S. W. Am. C. R. 65; P. v. Ah Sing, 19 Cal. 175; S. V. Farris (Idaho), 51 Pac. 598. 772; S. V. Jenkins, 78 N. C. 478, 4 § 437 LARCENY. 117 owned by the "American Merchants' Union Express Company," is not sufficient, in failing to state that body to be a corporation.* §437. Ownership— When doubtful.— If it be doubtful from the evidence whetlier tlie stolen goods were the property of one person or another, then in such case, one count alleging the ownership in one person and another alleging the ownership in another person, is proper.' § 438. Owner of astray — ^Unknown owner. — A person who has taken up a horse as an estray may be alleged in the indictment as the ■owner.^" If the owner be unknown, provided there be a property, it is larceny to steal it ; and an indictment will lie for the goods of a person unknown.^'- § 439. Owner of estate — Burial goods. — The administrator of a -dead person's estate is the owner, and in charging larceny thereof the indictment is bad in averring the ownership of the property to be in the administrator and the heirs of the deceased jointly.^^ But an heir of the estate may be alleged as the owner where he has control of it.^^ "If A dying, be buried, and B opens the grave in the night-time and steals the winding sheet, the indictment can not suppose them the goods ° Speers v. Com., 17 Gratt. (Va.) Ind. 420, 2 Green C. R. 693, 13 Am. 570; Becker v. Com. (Pa.), 8 Cent. R. 369, citing S. v. Williams, 10 Rep. 388, 9 Atl. 510. See S. v. Lock- Humph. (Tenn.) 101. wood, 58 Vt. 378, 3 Atl. 539. '"Waters v. P., 104 111. 547; S. v. " Murphy v. P., 104 111. 534, 4 Am. Hennessey, 23 Ohio St. 339, 2 Greea C. R. 323; Schintz v. P., 178 III. 321, C. R. 542; Nichols v. Com., 78 Ky. 52 N. E. 903; Redman v. S., 1 Blackf. 180; S. v. Wagner, 118 Mo. 626, 24 (Ind.) 429; S. v. Blakesley, 43 Kan. S. W. 219; S. v. Larson, 85 Iowa 250, 23 Pac. 570; S. v. Morrison, 85 659, 52 N. W. 539; S. v. Ward, 19 N. C. 561; Bennett v. P., 96 111. 605; Nev. 297, 10 Pac. 133; P. v. Johnson, Thompson v. P., 125 111. 260, 17 N. 81 Mich. 573, 45 N. W. 1119; S. v. 'B. 749; Andrews v. P., 117 111. 200, Newton, 42 Vt. 537; Lowe v. S., 57 7 N. B. 265; Tobin v. P., 104 111. 567; Ga. 171. Hampton v. S., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) "Joslyn v. S., 128 Ind. 160, 27 N. 69; Com. v. O'Connell, 12 Allen E. 492; S. v. Holmes, 28 Conn. 230; (Mass.) 451; Gabriel v. S., 40 Ala. S. v. Faulkner, 32 La. 725; Waters 357; S. V. Moultrie, 33 La. 1146; v. S., 104 111. 544; S. v. McCormack, Brown v. P., 39 Mich. 37; S. v. Law- 8 Or. 236; S. v. Merrill, 44 N. H. rence, 81 N. C. 522. 624. " Bradley v. S., 20 Fla. 738, 5 Am. == Bushman v. Com., 138 Mass. 507; C. R. 619. Lowe v. S., 57 Ga. 171; S. v. New- "Watera v. P., 104 111. 546. See ton, 42 Vt. 537; S. v. Merrill, 44 N.. Phillips V. S., 85 Tenn. 551, 3 S. W. H. 624; S. v. Simons, 70 N. C. 336. • 434, 7 Am. C. R. 318; Clem v. S., 42 § 444 LARCENY. 119 § 444. Intent to appropriate. — Under a statute providing that "any person having possession of personal property of another by virtue of a contract of hiring, or borrowing, or other bailment, who shall, with- out the consent of the owner, fraudulently convert such property to his own use, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, shall be guilty of theft/' it is not necessary to allege in the indictment an intent to appropriate the property.^^ § 445. Allegation as to consent. — 'Wliere larceny, as defined by statute, contains the element of taking the property "without the con- sent of the owner," then the indictment must allege the taking with- out the consent of the owner or person having possession of the prop- erty.^* § 446. Allegation as to taking. — Where the statute describing the crime of larceny contains the element of taking the property "from the possession" of the owner, then the indictment must allege the tak- ing "from the possession" of the owner, with the other necessary aver- ments.^^ §447. Alleging "against will." — An indictment charging that the defendant did "feloniously steal, take and lead away" from the owner's possession his pair of oxen, is sufficient without stating against the owner's will or with intent to deprive him of his property.^° § 448. Alleging corporation. — An information charging larceny of property from a corporation need not allege its corporate charter, or the fact of incorporation. It is sufficient to aver its corporate name. And it is only necessary to prove the de facto existence of the corpora- tion by reputation or otherwise.^^ §449. "Feloniously" essential— "Away."— If the word "felon- iously" be used in the statutory definition of larceny, an indictment ^=Purcelly v. S., 29 Tex. App. 1, Mullen, 30 Iowa 203; Garcia v. S 13 S. W. 993. See S. v. Griffin, 79 26 Tex. 209, 82 Am. D. 605 Iowa 568, 44 N. W. 813. ==Com. v. Butler, 144 Pa. St 568 "Johnson V. S., 39 Tex. 393; Thur- 24 Atl. 910; P. v. Davis 97 Cal' mond V. S., 30 Tex. App. 539, 17 S. 194, 31 Pac. 1109; S. v. Hackett 47 W. 1098; Smith v. S., 21 Tex. App. Minn. 425, 50 N. W. 472 133, 17 S. W. 558. But see Burns "Braithwaite v. S., 28 Neb 832 v. S., 35 Tex. 724. Contra, Wedge 45 N. W. 247; S. v. Grant 104 N c' v. S., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 687. 908, 10 S. E. 555; Kossakowski v "'Garner v. S., 36 Tex. 693; S. v. P., 177 111. 563, 53 N. E. 115 120 hughes' criminal law. § 450 omitting to allege that the property was feloniously stolen, taken and carried away, is bad.^* The indictment must allege a felonious or fraudulent intent.^" The indictment alleging that the defendant did ■"unlaM-fuUy and feloniously take, steal and carry in a dwelling house one twenty-dollar gold piece," is sufficient, though it is defective in •omitting the word "away" after carry.^" § 450. Venue — What county. — If the goods were stolen in one county and carried into another, the indictment will be sufBeient in charging the larceny in the latter county without setting out the trans- action in the other county.^^ Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 451. Possession — ^Evidence of guilt. — The possession of stolen property soon after the commission of a theft is prima facie evidence of the guilt of the person in whose possession it is found, and is suffi- cient to warrant a conviction, unless the other evidence in the case or the surrounding circumstances are such as to raise a reasonable doubt of such guilt. ^^ That the rule that possession of property recently ^SoTine v. S., 85 Ind. 576; Scud- 292, 3 Am. C. R. 244. See Walker -der V. S., 62 Ind. 13. v. Com., 28 Gratt. 969, 3 Am. C. R. '"McCord V. S., 79 Ala. 269; Gate- 265; 3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 31, 32, 33; wood V. S., 4 Ohio 386; Com. v. Unger v. S., 42 Miss. 642; S. v. Tur- Pratt, 132 Mass. 246. ner, 65 N. C. 592; Tucker v. S., 57 =»S. V. Witt, 33 Or. 594, 55 Pac. Ga. 503; Brooks v. S., 96 Ga. 353, 1053; S. V. Parry, 48 La. 1483, 21 So. 23 S. E. 413, 10 Am. C. R. 136; Bry- 30. Contra, Rountree v. S., 58 Ala. ant v. S., 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; 381; Com. v. Adams, 73 Mass. 43. Johnson v. S., 148 Ind. 522, 47 N. B. ="Hurlburt v. S., 52 Neb. 428, 72 926; S. v. Kelly, 50 La. 597, 23 So. N. W. 471; P. v. Prather, 120 Cal. 543; Tomerlin v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), ■660, 53 Pac. 259; Keith v. Ter., 8 Okl. 26 S. W. 214; Branson v. Com., 92 307, 57 Pac. 834; Hoffman v. S. Ky. 330, 13 Ky. L. 614, 17 S. W. 1019; (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 309; Mor- S. v. Moore, 101 Mo. 316, 14 S. W. Tissey v. P., 11 Mich. 327; Johnson 182; S. v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185; S. v. y. S., 47 Miss. 671; McFarland v. S., Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297; Tilly v. S., 4 Kan. 68; P. v. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648; 21 Fla. 242; Ter. v. Casio, 1 Ariz. Thomas v. S., 114 Ala. 31, 21 So. 485, 2 Pac. 755; S. v. Kelly, 57 Iowa 784. Conira, Hurt v. S., 26 Ind. 106; 644, 11 N. W. 635; Snowden v. S., Alsey V. S., 39 Ala. 664. 62 Miss. 100; S. v. Jordan, 69 Iowa ^Keating v. P., 160 111. 483, 43 N. 506, 29 N. W. 430; P. v. Mahoney, 18 E. 724; Smith v. P., 103 111. 85; Cal. 180; Foster v. S., 52 Miss. 695; Waters v. P., 104 111. 544; Sahlinger Shepherd v. S., 44 Ark. 39; Hughes v. P., 102 111. 241; Comfort v. P., 54 v. S., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 75; Robin- in. 404; S. v. Brady, 27 Iowa 126; son v. S., 22 Tex. App. 690, 2 S. W. Com. V. Randall, 119 Mass. 107; 539; Graves v. S., 12 Wis. 591. Gunther v. P., 139 111. 531, 28 N. E. Contra, White v. S., 21 Tex. App. 1101; S. v. Walker, 41 Iowa 217, 1 339, 17 S. W. 727; P. v. Chadwick, Am. C. R. 433; Gablick v. P., 40 Mich. 7 Utah 134, 25 Pac. 737; Harper v. § 452 LAKCENY. 121 stolen makes ont a prima facie case of guilt, and throws upon the de- fendant the burden of explaining that possession, is one of long stand- ing and abundantly fortified by authorities, no one can question.^' "Possession of stolen property, if immediately subsequent to the lar- ceny, may sometimes be almost conclusive of guilt; but the presump- tion weakens with the time that has elapsed, and may scarcely arise at all if others besides the accused have had access with himself to the place where it is discovered."** § 453. Possession is presumption of fact. — The presumption that the person found in possession of recently stolen property is the thief, is not a presumption of law, but one of fact. There is no legal rule on the subject ; but much depends on the nature of the property stolen and the circumstances of each particular case. Such presumption estab- lishes no legal rule, ascertains no legal test, defines no legal terms, measures no legal standard, bounds no legal limits.*^ To raise a pre- sumption of guilt from the possession of the fruits of the instruments of crime by the prisoner, it is necessary that they be found in his ex- clusive possession.'^ § 453. "Satisfactory" explanation of possession. — The defendant is not required to satisfactorily explain his possession of recently stolen property. If after considering the evidence introduced by him in con- nection with all the other evidence in the case, there appears a reason- able doubt of his guilt, he must be acquitted.*^ S., 71 Miss. 202, 13 So. 882. See Belote v. S., 36 Miss. 96, 72 Am. D. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 31; Curtis v. S., 6 163; Com. v. Montgomery, 11 Mete. Coldw. (Tenn.) 9; P. v. Swinford, 57 (Mass.) 534, 45 Am. D. 227. Cal. 86; P. v. Noregea, 48 Cal. 123, ""Smith v. S., 58 Ind. 340, 2 Am. 1 Am. C. R. 436; S. v. Rosecrans, 9 C. R. 375; S. v. Hodge 50 N h' N. D. 163, 82 N. "W. 422; Calloway 510. See 3 Greenl. Ev. § 31- s' V. S., Ill Ga. 832, 36 S. E. 63. v. Jennett, 88 N. C. 665; Bellamy v" ^S. V. Cassady, 12 Kan. 550, 1 S., 35 Fla. 242, 17 So. 560; Ingalls Am. C. R. 572; S. v. Buckley, 60 v. S., 48 Wis. 647, 4 N. W 785- Iowa 471, 15 N. W. 289; 1 Greenl. Jones v. S., 26 Miss. 247- "p v Ev., § 34; Burrill's Circ. Ev., 446; Pagan, 66 Cal. 534, 6 Pa'c 394-" Price's Case, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 864; Stokes v. S., 58 Miss. 677- S ITnger v. S., 42 Miss. 642; S. v. Tur- v. Graves, 72 N. C. 482, 1 Am. C R* ner, 65 N. C. 592; Knickerbocker v. 429; S. v. Walker 41 Iowa 217 1 P., 43 N. Y. 177; S. v. Creson, 38 Am. C. R. 433; Yates v. S 37 Tex Mo. 372; P. v. Mahoney, 18 Cal. 180; 202, 1 Am. C. R. 434 S. V. Daly, 37 La. 576; S. v. Weston, »»3 Greenl. Ev., § 33- S v Lack- 9 Conn. 527; Ter. v. Casio, 1 Ariz, land, 186 Mo. 26, 37 S. W 812- Rob- 485, 2 Pac. 755; Mondragon v. S., inson v. S., 22 Tex. Add 690 2 «? 33 Tex. 480; Smith v. P., 103 111. W. 539; P. v. Hurley, 60 Cal 74 44 82. Am. R. 55. ' "Gablick V. P., 40 Mich. 292,3Am. "Hoge v. P. 117 m 44 6 N 15' €. R. 245; White v. S., 72 Ala. 195; 796; S. v. Kirkpatrick,'72 Iowa m. 122 hughes' criminal law- § 454 § 454. Possession long after larceny. — There are many cases where the possession of stolen goods is so long after the commission of the crime that a court will refuse to submit the question to the jury — de- ciding as a matter of law that the possession is not recent — but in all other cases the question is one of fact to be submitted to the jury.^* The facts and circumstances were reviewed in detail on the question of stolen property, found in possession of the defendant nearly two years after the larceny, and held sufficient to sustain a conviction.*' § 455. Possession — Not exclusive. — The mere finding of stolen goods in the house of the prisoner, when there are other inmates ca- pable of stealing the property, is insufifieient evidence to prove posses- sion by the prisoner.*" § 456. Possession of part. — Evidence that the defendant had pos- session of part of the stolen property, may, in connection with other evidence, warrant a conviction.*^ It is not essential to a conviction that the stolen goods should be found in the possession of the defend- ant, when the charge is otherwise clearly proven.*^ § 457. Explaining possession. — It can make no difference who makes the proof, or how ; if it shall appear that the accused came into possession of the stolen property honestly, he is entitled to the benefit of such proof, and an instruction depriving him of that benefit is erroneous.** "What explanation a person makes while in the posses- sion of stolen property, at the time of finding it in his possession, is ad- missible as explanatory of the character of his possession."** 34 N. W. 301, 7 Am. C. R. 334; Smith 1 Am. C. R. 438. See also Galloway v. S., 58 Ind. 340, 2 Am. C. R. 375; v. S., 41 Tex. 289, 1 Am. C. R. 437. Van Straaten v. P., 26 Colo. 184, 56 " Conkwrlght v. P., 35 111. 206; S. Pac. 905; S. v. Miner, 107 Iowa 656, v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242, 5 S. W. 906; 78 N. W. 679; Grentzinger v. S., 31 Turbeville v. S., 42 Ind. 490; Gab- Neb. 460, 48 N. W. 148; Hyatt v. S., lick v. P., 40 Mich. 292, 3 Am. C. R. 32 Tex. Cr. 580, 25 S. W. 291; 244. See S. v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 122. Heed v. S., 25 Wis. 421; S. v. Mer- Contra, P. v. Wilson, 151 N. Y. 403, rick, 19 Me. 398. 45 N. E. 862. =' S. V. Walker, 41 Iowa 217, 1 Am. " S. v. Phelps, 91 Mo. 478, 4 S. W. C. R. 433; 3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 30, 31, 119; Snowden v. S., 62 Miss. 100; 32; Com. v. Montgomery, 11 Mete. S. v. Buckley, 60 Iowa 471, 15 N. (Mass.) 534; Rex v. Partridge, 7 C. W. 289. & P. 551; Engleman v. S., 2 Ind. 91. *=Garrity v. P., 107 111. 168. »• Reg. V. Starr, 40 U. C. Q. B. 268, « Conkwright v. P., 35 111. 206. , " Bennett v. P., 96 111. 607. § 458 LARCENY. 123 § 458. Explaining possession — What said. — The defendant in ex- plaining his possession of stolen property is entitled to show what was said to him at the time he received the property.*' What the de- fendant said and did about the property at the time he took it, and his dealings with it afterward as well as his conduct in reference thereto, are competent on the question of intent.** What the defendant said at the time stolen property was found in his possession or at the time of his arrest is admissible as part of the res gestae." § 459. Explaining possession — Burden. — After the defendant has given a reasonable explanation of his possession of the property al- leged to have been stolen, rebutting the presumption of guilt arising from his possession, then the burden is on the prosecution to prove that his explanation is false.*® § 460. Recent possession — ^Law. — "The court instructs the jury that possession of property soon after it was stolen is of itself prima facie evidence that it was stolen by the defendant." Held error to- give this instruction, because it excludes any and all circumstances surrounding the facts of possession.*' Instructing the jury that if « S. V. Jordan, 69 Iowa 506, 29 N. Pae. 477; S. v. Filmore, 92 Iowa W. 430. 766, 61 N. W. 191; Pitts v. S. (Tex. "Beatty v. S., 61 Miss*. 18; Com. Cr. App.), 30 S. W. 359; S. v. Hoff- v. Hurd, 123 Mass. 438;.McPhail v. man, 53 Kan. 700, 37 Pae. 138; P, S., 9 Tex. App. 164; Wynn v. S., 81 v. Nicolsi (Cal.), 34 Pae. 824; Al- Ga. 744, 7 S. B. 689. len v. S. (Tex. Or. App.), 24 S. W. "Hubbard v. S., 107 Ala. 33, 18 30; Freese v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 21 So. 225; Bennett v. P., 96 111. 602; S. W. 189; Van Emons v. S. (Tex. Smith V. S., 108 Ala. 40, 16 So. 12; Cr. App.), 20 S. W. 1106; Ford v. Lopez V. S., 28 Tex. App. 343, 13 S. S., 92 Ga. 459, 17 S. B. 667; Carreker W. 219; Doss v. S., 28 Tex. App. v. S., 92 Ga. 471, 17 S. E. 671; De 506, 13 S. "W. 788; Ward v. S., 41 Los Santos v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), Tex. 611; Perry v. S., 41 Tex. 485; 22 S. W. 924; Shepperd v. S., 94 Walker v. S., 28 Ga. 254. Ala. 102, 10 So. 663; S. v. Miller 45 « Powell V. S., 11 Tex. App. 401; Minn. 521, 48 N. W. 401; Cosby v. Brothers v. S., 22 Tex. App. 447, 3 S. Com., 12 Ky. L. 982, 16 S. W. 88 W. 737; Jones v. S., 30 Miss. 653; Reed v. S., 54 Ark. 621, 16 S. W. 819 Johnson v. S., 12 Tex. App. 385. See S. v. Guest, 101 Mo. 234, 13 S.W.957, Tilly V. S., 21 Fla. 242. But see S. v. P. v. Hawksley, 82 Mich. 71, 45 N. Kimble, 34 La. 392; S. v. Brown, 25 W. 1123; Johnson v. S., 77 Ga. 68 Iowa 561. Possession of recently (hog marks). But not sufficient in stolen property— evidence sufficient the following: Hilligas v. S., 55 Neb. to sustain convictions in the follow- 586, 75 N. W. 1110; Moore v. S., 100 ing cases: P. v. Vldal, 121 Cal. 221, Ga. 81, 25 S. B. 848; S. v. Wilks 5& 53 Pae. 558; Ray v. S. (Tex. Cr. Mo. App. 159; Foresythe v. S. (Tex. App.), 43 S. W. 77; Madden v. S., Cr. App.), 20 S. W. 371; Coleman v. 148 Ind. 183, 47 N. B. 220; S. v. Mc- S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 22 S. W. 41; S. Kinistry, 100 Iowa 82, 69 N. W. v. Bulla, 89 Mo. 595, 1 S. W. 764. 267; P. V. Wright, 11 Utah 41, 39 *° Conkwright v. P., 35 111. 206- S. 124 hughes' criminal laav. § 461 they find that the defendants had possession of the stolen property, as testified to by Van Epps and Hyatt, and such possession was unex- plained, they must find the defendants guilty, is erroneous, in that it directs the Jury to exclude from their consideration the evidence of an alibi or other evidence in the case.^" The following instruction is erroneous in that it omits the word "stealing :" "The court instructs the jury that larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away the personal goods of another."^^ "The fact of possession of stolen prop- erty, standing alone and unconnected with any other circumstance, affords but slight presumption of guilt, for the real criminal may have artfully placed the property in the possession or on the premises of au innocent person the better to conceal his own guilt." Held error to refuse this instruction considering the evidence.^^ § 461. Other stolen property. — In case of larceny, it is competent to show possession of other stolen property, besides that alleged in the indictment.^' But it has been held that evidence of the possession of other stolen property is not competent unless it can be shown such other property was taken at the same time by the same person with that mentioned in the indictment.^* Evidence of other stolen property found with that described in the indictment is competent as tending to connect the defendant with the larceny charged in the indictment.^' Evidence of other articles of property stolen at'the same time and place as that alleged in the indictment, is competent as tending to prove the criminal intent alleged, or to identify the property when its identity is in dispute.^" § 462. Similar coins found on defendant. — ^Very soon after the lar- ceny with which the defendant was charged, five twenty-dollar gold v. Hale. 12 Or. 352, 7 Pac. 523, 6 Am. Ind. 425, 5 Am. C. R. 362, 1 N. B. C. R. 402; Robb v. S., 35 Neb. 285, 869. See P. v. Phillips, 42 N. Y. 53 N. W. 134; Fisher v. S., 46 Ala. 200. See also P. v. Cunningham, 66 717; Matthews v. S., 61 Miss. 155; Cal. 668, 4 Pac. 1144, 6 Pac. 700, 846. Gomez v. S., 15 Tex. App. 64. See "Com. v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) also, Jones v. P., 12 111. 259; Smith 376. v. S., 58 Ind. 340, 2 Am. C. R. 375. » S. v. Ditton, 48 Iowa 677; P. v. ""S. V. Snell, 46 Wis. 524, 1 N. W. Robles, 34 Cal. 591; Com. v. Riggs, 225, 3 Am. C. R. 262. 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, 77 Am. D. 333; =' Hix V. P., 157 111. 385, 41 N. E. Yarborough v. S., 41 Ala. 405. 862. '"Robinson v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), '' Gablick v. P., 40 Mich. 292, 3 Am. 48 S. W. 176; Johnson v. S., 148 Ind. C. R. 245. See also Smith v. S., 58 522, 47 N. B. 926. See Parker v. Ind. 340, 2 Am. C. R. 374. U. S. (Ind. Ter.), 43 S. W. 858; S. "=3 Greenl. Ev., § 31; Webb v. S., v. Weaver, 104 N. C. 758, 10 S. B. S Tex. App. 115; Turner v. S., 102 486. § 463 LARCENY. 125 coins were found in his stockings. These coins were properly admit- ted in evidence as tending to identify the money of the prosecuting witness which was similar in description to that found on the defend- ant." § 463. Independent larceny incompetent. — The rule has never been carried so far as to admit evidence against the accused, of an independ- ent larceny, although of the same character as that charged in the in- dictment, for the purpose of convicting him of the crime alleged.^* § 464. Same artifice on others. — Evidence that the accused on sev- eral occasions attempted to practice upon others the same artifice or trick which they resorted to upon the prosecutor to get possession of his property, is competent as tending to show a conspiracy to defraud whoever might be cheated by their artifice. °^ § 465. Other stolen goods. — Evidence that other goods known to have been stolen were previously received by the defendant from the same thief, is admissible for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge on the part of the accused that the goods for the receiving of which he is charged, were stolen."" § 466. Burglary and larceny — Same act. — Evidence of burglary is competent on the trial of a charge of larceny where the burglary and larceny were committed at the same time by the same person, constitut- ing but one transaction."^ § 467. Other larceny— Incompetent.— The owner of the cattle al- leged to have been stolen was permitted to testify that he had lost about twenty-five head of other cattle from the ranch. Held error, there being nothing to connect the defendant with the loss of such other eattle."^ "P. V. Piggott, 126 Cal. 509, 59 53, 1 Green C. R. 360; P. v. Lovejoy Pac. 31. Sees. V. Lucey (Mont), 61 55 N. Y. Supp. 543; 3 Greenl. Ev. Pac. 994. § 90. "Snapp V. Com., 82 Ky. 173. See «» Shriedley v. S., 23 Ohio St. 130, S. V. Vinson, 63 N. C. 335; S. v. 2 Green C. R. 530; P. v. Rando 3 Reavis, 71 Mo. 419; P. v. Hartman, Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 335; 3 Greenl 62 Cal. 562; Barton v. S., 18 Ohio Ev., § 15; Devote v. Com 3 Mete 221; Carter v. S., 23 Tex. App. 508, (Ky.) 417. 5 S. W. 128; Boland v. P., 19 Hun »> S. v. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, 27 N (N. Y.) 80; Crowell v. S., 74 Ga. W. 781. ■ ^^,®- ^ ='Isham V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), ™Defrese v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 41 S. W. 622. 126 hughes' criminal law. § 468 § 468. Other acts incompetent. — Evidence that the defendant sold other hogs, together with two hogs alleged to have been stolen, some with and some without earmarks differing from the marks of the two alleged to have been stolen, is not competent."' § 469. Other articles, competent. — An Imitation diamond ring and other cheap jewelry, found in the valise of the defendants, may be in- troduced in evidence where they are charged with the larceny of a dia- mond ring, by substituting a cheap one while pretending to buy."* § 470. Other larceny incompetent. — Testimony of an accomplice that after he and the defendant returned to the home of the latter with the stolen goods, they went out the same night and stole other goods, is inadmissible, being a distinct offense."^ § 471. Defendant seen with money — Changing money. — It is com- petent to show on the trial of a defendant for the larceny of money that, shortly after the larceny, he was seen with money lounging about the store on the night of the larceny, and that he had no means of his own before the larceny."" On the trial of a charge for stealing money, evidence that the defendant had money in his possession when ar- rested, is competent as a circumstance -tending to establish his guilt."^ Evidence, that on the next morning after the theft, the defendants changed copper for other coin, is not competent on the trial for steal- ing silver coin."* § 472. Defendant's statement as to stealing. — On a charge of steal- ing milk cans it is competent to show that the defendant said to an- other person in the milk business that if he was short of cans he could go out and steal them."* § 473. Marks, labels — ^Brands on animals. — Testimony as to marks or labels upon goods or upon barrels containing liquors is competent ™Tinney v. S., Ill Ala. 74, 20 So. Mete. (Mass.) 534; Gates v. P., 14 597. 111. 438. " Glndrat v. P., 138 111. 112, 27 N.. " S. v. Burns, 19 Wash. 52, 52 Pac. E. 1085. 316. ""S. V. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, 27 Atl. " S. v. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149, 1 S. 203, 9 Am. C. R. 354. W. 827. "■Leonard v. S., 115 Ala. 80, 22 "'Com. v. Corkery, 175 Mass. 460, So. 564; Martin v. S., 104 Ala. 71, 16 56 N. B. 711. So. 82; Com. v. Montgomery, 11 '§ 474 LARCENY, 127 as tending to identify the goods.'" The brand with which an animal is Marked, and which was recorded before the animal was stolen, is prima fade proof of ownership, bnt not if recorded after the larceny.''^ The brand of the cattle on a charge of larceny may be shown in evidence, -though not recorded, to identify the cattle. ''^ § 474. Intent — May be inferred. — The intent is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and, where the evidence warrants, it may be inferred. But the court can not direct the jury to infer the intent.'* §475. Value — ^Evidence of. — The evidence must show that the property stolen was of some value, to sustain a conviction for larceny.'* § 476. Market value. — The defendant offered evidence of the mar- ket value of other hogs like those alleged to have been stolen, for the purpose of showing that such hogs were not worth as much as stated by the prosecuting witness. Held error to refuse.'^ § 477. Proof as to want of consent. — Where the taking of the prop- erty "without the consent" of the owner is by statutory description an element of the offense, then the prosecution, on the trial, must affirm- atively prove the want of consent of the owner.'* '"S. v. Klger, 115 N. C. 746, 20 sufficiently proved: S. v. Fatten, 1 S. B. 456; Cole v. P., 37 Mlcli. 544; Marv. (Del.) 552, 41 Atl. 193; Gear ■Com. v. Hills, 10 Gush. (Mass.) 530. v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 285. "Turner v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 322, 45 Intent not sufficiently proved: Jones S. W. 1020; Unsell v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. v. S. (Tex. Gr. App.), 49 S. W. 387; 330, 45 S. W. 1022; Harwell v. S., Eoss v. Com., 14 Ky. L. 259, 20 S. W. 22 Tex. App. 251, 2 S. W. 606. But 214; P. v. Dean, 58 Hun 610, 12 N. Y. see Chavez v. Ter., 6 N. M. 455, 30 Supp. 749; Parks v. S., 29 Tex. App. Pac. 903. 597, 16 S. W. 532. "Brooke v. P., 23 Colo. 375, 48 "S. v. Gerrish, 78 Me. 20, 2 Atl. Pac. 502. See Black v. S., 38 Tex. 129; Radford v. S., 35 Tex. 15; Cr. 58, 41 S. W. 606; Lock- S. v. Fenn, 41 Conn. 590; wood V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 137, Wolverton v. Com., 75 Va. 909; 22 S. W. 413, 26 S. W. 200; Goffelt Whitehead v. S., 20 Fla. 841; P. v. T. S., 19 Tex. App. 436; McGrew v. Griffin, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 475; S., 31 Tex. Cr. 336, 20 S. W. 740; Com. v. Burke, 12 Allen (Mass.) P. V. Bolanger, 71 Cai. 17, 11 Pac. 182; Hawkins v. S., 9B Ga. 458, 20 799; S. V. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319, 10 S. E. 217. Pac. 433; Harvey v. S., 21 Tex. App. "Cannon v. S., 18 Tex. App. 172. 178, 17 S. W. 158. '"Anderson v. S., 14 Tex. App. 49; '=P. V. Carahin, 14 Gal. 438; P. v. S. v. Moon, 41 Wis. 684; Garcia v. Griswold, 64 Mich. 722, 31 N. W. S., 26 Tex. 209; Williamson v. S., 809; Doss v. S., 21 Tex. App. 505, 2 13 Tex. App. 514; Bowling v. S., 13 S. W. 814, 57 Am. R. 618; S. v. Mo- Tex. App. 338; Foster v. S., 21 Tex. Kee, 17 Utah 370, 53 Pac. 733. Intent App. 80, 17 S. W. 548. 128 hughes' criminal law. § 478 § 478. Ownership — Owner as witness. — If the owner of the prop- erty alleged to have been stolen and his attendance as a witness can be procured, his testimony that the property was taken from him without his consent, is indispensable to a conviction upon the principle that his testimony is the primary and best evidence that the property was taken without his consent ; and hence that secondary evidence can not be re- sorted to until the prosecution shows its inability, after due diligence, to procure the attendance of the owner of the property.'' But if the testimony of the owner himself can not be had, then other competent evidence may be resorted to, such as circumstantial evidence." A per- son rightfully in possession of property is presumed to be the owner until the contrary is made to appear." § 479. Election, when. — Where several counts form the indictment, relating to but one transaction, the prosecution will not be required to elect on which count it will ask conviction.*" § 480. Variance — Larceny, false pretense. — The indictment charged the accused with the crime of grand larceny, but the evidence showed that the property alleged to have been stolen was obtained by false pretense. Held to be a variance, even though by statute, the offense of obtaining goods by false pretense shall be deemed larceny.'^ § 481. Stealing from house^"Warehouse." — Stealing property of another from his room where he is occupying the room as a lodger is larceny "from the house" of such person.*^ Evidence of the burglary of a warehouse supports a charge of the burglary of "storehouse." The two words mean the same thing.*^ "S. V. Moon, 41 Wis. 684, 2 Am. Goodhue v. P., 94 III. 46; Whiting C. R. 65; S. V. Morey, 2 Wis. 494. v. S., 48 Ohio St. 220, 27 N. E. 96. "Schultz v. S., 20 Tex. App. 308; See S. v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; S. v. Stewart v. S., 9 Tex. App. 321; Love Hazard, 2 R. I. 474. V. S., 15 Tex. App. 563; S. v. Moon, »'P. v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 503, 13 41 Wis. 684; P. v. Wiggins, 28 Hun N. E. 325; Fulton v. S., 13 Ark. 168; (N. Y.) 308, 92 N. Y. 656. Lott v. S., 24 Tex. App. 723, 14 S. W. '"S. V. Burns, 109 Iowa 436, 80 277; Com. v. Berry, 99 Mass. 428, 96 N. W. 545. See Evidence, under Am. D. 767. See Kibs v. P., 81 111. chapter on "Robbery;" Bow v. P., 599. 160 III. 442, 43 N. E. 593. '^ Farlinger v. S., 110 Ga. 313, 35 * Andrews v. P., 117 111. 200, 7 N. S. E. 152. E. 265; Hampton v. S., 8 Humph. »= S. v. Sprague, 149 Mo. 409, 50 (Tenn.) 69; Bennett v. P., 96 111. S. W. 901. 602; S. V. Halida, 28 W. Va. 499; § 482 LARCENY. 129 § 482. Receiving, distinct from larceny.— "Eeceiving" is a distinct and independent crime from larceny. A person could not be guilty of both in the same transaction.'* § 483. Variance — Description. — If an indictment alleges the lar- ceny of a "black gelding horse," such description becomes material and must be proved as described ; and, of course, the same rule applies as to the description of any other kind of property.*' An allegation in the indictment that the animal stolen had a crop off the left ear and a slit in the right ear, is not supported by evidence that the animal stolen had a crop off the right ear and a slit in the left. Held a fatal vari- ance.*° § 484. Variance— Sex of animal. — The indictment charged the lar- ceny of a "roan horse." The evidence showed that the animal was a "roan mare." Held no variance." But if the allegation be a "roan mare," it will not support proof of a roan horse.*' § 485. Variance — Description of money. — An indictment alleging the larceny of "United States currency money" is supported by proof that the money was either United States treasury notes or national bank notes, or United States gold or silver certificates.*'* The only evidence introduced as to the kind, character or value of the money was the following: "How much money did you have? Ans. One hundred and thirty. Second. In what denominations was the money? Ans. Two fifties and three tens." Held not sufficient to identify treasury notes, national bank bills, greenbacks or gold or sil- ver coin, or any evidence of the value or amount in dollars, or any other denomination of money. ^^ The indictment charged the defend- ant in one count with stealing "one national bank note of the denomi- «Tobin V. P., 104 111. 567; S. v. «» Thrasher v. S., 6 Blackf. (Ind.) Whitaker, 89 N. C. 472; Ross v. S., 460. See Underhill Cr. Ev., § 34, I Blackf. (Ind.) 390; Cohea v. S., 9 citing Parker v. S., 39 Ala. 365 Tex. App. 173; George v. S., 59 Neb. (cow); S. v. Bassett, 34 La. 1108 163, 80 N. W. 486. (chickens); M'Cully's Case, 2 Lew. «>Cofeelt V. S., 27 Tex. App. 608, C. C. 272 (sheep); Davis v. S., 23 II S. W. 639; S. v. Jackson, 30 Me. Tex. App. 210, 4 S. W. 590 (horse); 29; Williams v. P., 101 111. 384; S. v. S. v. Godet, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 210 Bahb, 76 Mo. 501; Morris v. S., 97 (hog). Ala. 82, 12 So. 276. See P. v. Coon, »= Kimbrough v. S., 28 Tex. App 45 Cal. 672. 367, 13 S. W. 218. See Blount v. S. *■ Robertson v. S., 97 Ga. 206, 22 76 Ga. 17; S. v. Freeman, 89 N C S. E. 974. 469. "P. V. Pico, 62 Cal. 52; S. v. Gooch, »» Vale v. P., 161 111. 311 43 N E 60 Ark. 218, 29 S. W. 640; Taylor v. 1091, citing Williams v. P., 101 111 S., 44 Ga. 263. 382. hughes' c. l. — 9 130 hughes' criminal law. § 486 nation of five dollars, one treasury note of the denomination of five dollars." The evidence was that only one bill was stolen, and the witnesses said "that they did not know whether the bill was one issued by the treasiiry department or by some one of the national banks, but it was a bill in usual circulation." The indictment charges the steal- ing of both a bank note and a treasury note. The'evidence not being specific as to which one of the notes was stolen, a conviction could not be sustained."^ § 486. Variance — As to owner — Husband or wife. — Goods alleged io be the goods of A and B and shown to be A's proves a variance, though A had the possession of them at the time."^ The indictment -alleged the ownership of the property stolen to be in the husband, and the proof showed that it was owned jointly by the husband and wife. Held no variance.^^ § 487. Variance — Corporation de facto. — The evidence showing the ■existence of a corporation de facto, is sufficient to support the allega- tion of the existence of a corporation, in the absence of any proof to the contrary.'* § 488. Variance — Different offense. — By statutory definition, "sim- ple larceny" and "larceny from the person" are distinct offenses, and proof of larceny from the person will not support a charge of simple larceny. Simple larceny is a felony and larceny from the person is a misdemeanor.'^ § 489. Variance — ^As to amount. — Proof that the defendant stole a less amount of money than that charged in the indictment or only a part of the articles of property, is sufficient to sustain a conviction."® » S. V. Collins, 72 N. C. 144, 1 Am. »^ S. v. Habib, 18 R. I. 558, 30 Atl. C. R. 443. See Keating v. P., 160 462; P. v. Prank, 28 Cal. 507; Smith 111. 481, 43 N. B. 724; Hamilton v. v. S., 28 Ind. 321; Calkins v. S., 18 S., 60 Ind. 193, 28 Am. R. 653. Ohio St. 366. "^Widner v. S., 25 Ind. 234; S. v. '^King v. S., 54 Ga. 184, 1 Am. Burgess, 74 N. C. 272; McDowell C. R. 426. v. S., 68 Miss. 348, 8 So. 508; Mor- •» Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 44 ris V. S. (Miss.), 8 So. 295; S. v. S. W. 162; S. v. Thompson, 137 Mo. Fish, 27 N. J. L. 323; Hogg v. S., 3 620, 39 S. W. 83; Moore v. S. (Tex. Blackf. (Ind.) 326. Coreira, Brown Cr. App.), 24 S. W. 900; S. v. Ma.-tin, V. S., 79 Ala. 51; Olibare v. S. 82 N. C. 672; Rains v. S. (Pla.), 28 (Tex. Cr. App.), 48 S. W. 69. So. 57; Williams v. S., 41 Pla. 295, 27 "^S. v. Dredden, 1 Marv. (Del.) So. 898; Martin v. S. (Ala.), 28 So. S22, 41 Atl. 925. See Rauguth v. 92- White v. S. (Tex. Cr.). 67 S. W. P., 186 111. 93, 57 N. E. 832. lOO. §490 LARCENY. 131 § 490. General verdict. — The presumption arising from a general and unqualified verdict is that all the goods alleged to have been stolen were stolen and secreted.'' § 491. Verdict — Stating value. — Where the value of the property- determines the character of the offense and regulates the mode of pun- ishment, it is necessary for the jury to ascertain the value and state in iheir verdict.'^ The verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of the "larceny of twelve hundred dollars as charged in the indict- ment," is sufficient finding of the value of stolen money."" Notes, hills and coins declared to be legal tender in the payment of debts, have a fixed value by law, and the mere introduction of them in evidence, if genuine, authorizes the jury to infer the value.^"" "S. V. Gerrish, 78 Me. 20, 6 Am. C. R. 398, citing Com. v. Lavery, 101 Mass. 207; 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. (3d. ed.), I 714; Mason v. P., 2 Colo. 373; Du Bois v. S., 50 Ala. 139. See S. v. Baker, 70 N. C. 530; S. v. Stroud, 95 N. C. 626. »» Sawyer v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 53; Collins v. P., 39 111. 240; P. v. Wll- lett, 102 N. Y. 251, 6 N. E. 301; Tobin V. P., 104 111. 568; Highland V. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 392; Sloan v. P., 47 111. 76; Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111. 85, 45 N. B. 303; S. v. Red- man, 17 Iowa 329; Shines v. S., 42 Miss. 331; Parker v. S., 39 Ala. 365; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 153; S. v. McCarty, 73 Iowa 51, 34 N. W. 606; Pittman V. S., 14 Tex. App. 576; Du Bois v. S., 50 Ala. 139; Locke v. S., 32 N. H. 106; S. V. Krieger, 68 Mo. 98; Com. V. Cahill, 12 Allen 540; Whitehead V. S., 20 Fla. 841; Rooney v. S., 51 Neb. 576, 71 N. W. 309; Benjamin v. S., 105 Ga. 830, 31 S. E. 739; Fisher V. S., 52 Neb. 531, 72 N. W. 954. Contra, S. v. Kelliher, 32 Or. 240, 50 Pac. 532; Com. v. Butler, 144 Pa. St. 568, 24 Atl. 910; S. v. Colwell, 43 Minn. 378, 45 N. W. 847. "Hildreth v. P., 32 111.- 36; S. v. Eastman (Kan., 1901), 63 Pac. 597. '"Collins V. P., 39 111. 240; S. v. Moseley, 38 Mo. 380; S. v. Gerrish, 78 Me. 20, 2 Atl. 129, 6 Am. C. R. 398; Houston v. S., 13 Ark. 66; Cummings v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 128; S. V. Harris, 64 N. C. 127; S. V. Brown, 113 N. C. 645, 18 S. E. 51, 9 Am. C. R. 310; McCarty V. S., 127 Ind. 223, 26 N. E. 665; Grant v. S., 55 Ala. 201; Duvall v. S., 63 Ala. 12; S. v. Hyde, 22 Wash. 551, 61 Pac. 719. The evidence in the following cases sustained convic- tions: Com. V. Cruikshank, 138 Pa. St. 194, 20 Atl. 937; P. v. Suydam, 14 N. Y. Supp. 492, 38 N. Y. St. 850; Carroll v. P., 136 111. 456, 27 N. E. 18; P. V. McHale, 15 N. Y. Supp. 496, 39 N. Y. St. 75S; P. v. Williams, 58 Hun 278, 12 N. Y. Supp. 249; P. V. Wilkinson, 14 N. Y. Supp. 827, 38 N. Y. St. 994; S. v. Chew Muck You, 20 Or. 215, 25 Pac. 355; S. V. Gray, 106 N. C. 734, 11 S. E. 422 (asportation); S. v. Hall, 79 Iowa 674, 44 N. W. 914; P. v. Han- sen, 84 Cal. 291, 24 Pac. 117; S. v. Cardelll, 19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433 (corpus delicti); P. v. Raischke, 83 Cal. 501, 23 Pac. 1083; S. v. Graves, 95 Mo. 510, 8 S. W. 739; S. v. Minor, 106 Iowa 642, 77 N. W. 330; S. v. Berndgen, 75 Minn. 38, 77 N. W. 408; Tidwell v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 38, 47 S. W. 466, 48 S. W. 184 (corvus delicti); Hankins v. S. (Tex. Cr App.), 47 S. W. 992; Piland v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 47 S. W. 1007; Wat- son V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 48 S. W. 185; Nicks v. S., 40 Tex. Cr 1, 48 S. W. 186; Wright v. S. (Tex Cr. App.), 48 S. W. 191; Randolph V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 49 S. W. 591; S. V. Mandich, 24 Nev. 336, 54 Pac. 516; Areola v. S., 40 Tex. Cr 51, 48 S. W. 195; Newton v. S. (Tex 132 hughes' criminal law. § 491 Cr. App.), 48 S. W. 507; S. v. Dono- Cr. 279, 45 S. W. 911. The evl- van, 121 Mo. 496, 26 S. W. 340; P. dence in the following cases was not V. Luchetti, 119 Cal. 501, 51 Pac. sufficient to sustain convictions- 707; Housh v. P., 24 Colo. 262, 50 McMahon v. P., 120 111. 581, 11 N. Pac. 1036; Johnson v. S., 148 Ind. B. 883; Stuart v. P., 73 111. 21; Green 522, 47 N. E. 926; P. v. Dunn, 114 v. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. 651; Pitt- Mich. 355, 72 N. W. 172; Taylor v. man v. S. (Tex. App.), 17 S. W. 623; S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 285; Harsdorf v. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. Baxter v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 43 415; HoUey v. S., 21 Tex. App. 156, S. W. 87; Simnacher V. S. (Tex. Cr. 17 S. W. 159; Brown v. S. (Tex. App.), 43 S. W. 354; Williams v. App.), 19 S. W. 898; Booker v. S. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 45 S. W. 494; (Miss.), 9 So. 355; Sharp v. S., 29 Cheatham v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 45 Tex. App. 211, 15 S. W. 176; Kirk t. S. W. 565; Wright v. S. (Tex. Cr. Com., 12 Ky. L. 707, 14 S. W. 1089; App.), 45 S. W. 723; Dalzell v. S., 7 Lunsford v. S., 29 Tex. App. 205, 15 Wyom. 450, 53 Pac. 297 (corpus S. W. 204; McLin v. S., 29 Tex. App. delicti); Kent v. S., 64 Ark. 247, 41 171, 15 S. W. 600; S. v. Ballard, 104 S. W. 849; P. V. Wong Chong Suey, Mo. 634, 16 S. W. 525; Day v. S. 110 Cal. 117, 42 Pac. 420; P. v. (Miss.), 7 So. 326; Bromley v. P., Mann, 113 Cal. 76, 45 Pac. 182 (at- 27 111. 20; Lincoln v. P., 20 111. 365; tempt); S. v. Stuhlmiller, 94 Iowa Bennett v. S., 28 Tex. App. 342, 13 750, 64 N. W. 279; Phillips v. S. S. W. 142; Schnaubert v. S., 28 (Tex. Cr. App.), 34 S. W. 119; Boyd Tex. App. 222, 12 S. W. 732; V. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 29 S. W. 157; Sweeten v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), Garcia v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 26 S. 20 S. W. 712; Ligon v. S. (Tex. Cr. W. 504; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 22 S. W. 403; Sampson v. S. App.), 26 S. W. 504; Emmerson v. (Tex. Cr. App.), 20 S. W. 711 S., 33 Tex. Cr. 89, 25 S. W. 289; (value); S. v. Clifford, 86 Iowa 550, Harrison v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 25 53 N. W. 299; P. v. Curran (Cal), S. W. 287; Battle v. S. (Tex. Cr. 31 Pac. 1116; Gilmore v. S. (Tex.), App.), 24 S. W. 642; Weeks v. S. 13 S. W. 646; Tippie v. S. (Tex.), (Tex. Cr. App.), 24 S. W. 905; May 13 S. W. 777; Clark v. P., Ill 111. V. S., 38 Neb. 211, 56 N. W. 804; 404 (accomplice); Lockhart v. S. Green v. Com., 15 Ky. L. 566, (Tex.), 13 S. W. 993; Hicks v. S. 24 S. *W. 117; Overturf v. S., (Tex. Cr. App.), 47 S. W. 1016; 31 Tex. Cr. 10, 23 S. W. 147; Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 49 S. Olivarez v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 20 S. W. 387; Wellman v. S., 100 Ga. 576, W. 751; Conners v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 28 S. E. 605 (corpus delicti); 453, 20 S. W. 981; McManus v. Mitchell v. S., 103 Ga. 17, 29 S. E. S., 91 Ga. 7, 16 S. E. 98; P. v. Evans, 435; Martin v. S., 148 Ind. 519, 47 69 Hun 222, 23 N. Y. Supp. 717; P. N. E. 930; S. v. Donnelly, 72 Mo. V. Laurence, 70 Hun 80, 23 N. Y. App. 543; Rema v. S., 52 Neb. 375, Supp. 1095; P. V. Hearne, 66 Hun 72 N. W. 474; P. v. Rogers, 47 N. 626, 20 N. Y. Supp. 806; S. v. Daven- Y. Supp. 893, 12 N. Y. C. R. 476; port, 38 S. C. 348, 17 S. E. 37; P. v. Caldwell v. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 Cassin, 62 Hun 623, 16 N. Y. S. W. 304; Shelby v. S. (Tex. Cr. Supp. 926 (corpus delicti); Stal- App.), 42 S. W. 306; Lane v. S. (Tex. cup V. S., 129 Ind. 519, 28N. E. li:6; Cr. App.), 45 S. W. 693 (corpus P. V. Davis, 19 N. Y. Supp. 781; Hoi- delicti); P. v. Goldberg, 46 N. Y. sey V. S., 89 Ga. 433, 15 S. E. 588; Supp. 913, 20 App. Div. 444; Mizell Moss V. S., 88 Ga. 241, 14 S. B. 572; v. S., 38 Pla. 20, 20 So. 769; S. v. Dickson V. Ter. (Ariz., 1899), 56 Pac. Storts, 138 Mo. 127, 39 S. W. 483 971; S. V. House, 108 Iowa 68, 78 N. (conspiracy); Johnson v. S., 36 Tex. W. 859. The evidence in the follow- Cr. 394, 37 S. W. 424; Hamilton ing cases sustained convictions on v. S., 142 Ind. 276, 41 N. B. 588; S. larceny "from the person:" Chezem v. D^yoe, 97 Iowa 744, 66 N. W. 733; V. S., 56 Neb. 496, 76 N. W. 1056; Throckmorton v. Com. (Ky.), 29 S. S. V. Fisher, 106 Iowa 658, 77 N. W. W. 16; Holmes v. S., 59 Ark. 641, 27 456; P. V. Appleton, 120 Cal. 250, 52 S. W. 225; S. v. Bridgers. 114 N. C. Pac. 582; Clemmons v. S., 39 Tex. 868, 19 S. E. 607; -P. v. Gillette, 76 §491 LARCENY. 133 Hun 611, 28 N. Y. Supp. 101; Bishop App.), 24 S. W. 99; P. v. Fagan, 98 T. S. (Tex. Cr. App.), 25 S. W. 25; Cal. 230, 33 Pac. 60; Kaiser v. S., 35 P. V. Lesser, 76 Hun 371, 27 N. Y. Neb. 704, 53 N. W. 610; S. v. Whor^ Supp. 750; S. V. Payne, 6 Wash. 563, ton (Mont., 1901), 63 Pac, 627. 34 Pac. 317; Woods v. S. (Tex. Cr. CHAPTEE VIII. EMBEZZLEMENT. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 492-524 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 525-544 III. Indictment, §§ 545-559- IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 560-573 V. Jurisdiction;. Venue, §§ 574^578 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 492. Definition. — Whoever fraudulently converts to his own use, or secretes with intent to convert to his own use, the personal prop- erty of another, delivered to him as agent, servant, employe, or under some other fiduciary relation between him and the owner of the property, is guilty of embezzlement.^ The usual essential elements of embezzlement are (1) that the defendant was an agent, clerk, servant, or bailee; (2) that by virtue of his position or employment he received the money or property of his principal; (3) that he eon- verted it to his own use intending to steal it.^ § 493. Property received lawfully. — In order to constitute the crime of embezzlement it is necessary that the property embezzled should come lawfully into the hands of the party embezzling, and by virtue of the position of trust he occupies to the person whose prop- ^ S. V. Mason, 108 Ind. 48, 8 N. E. Reddick, 2 S. Dak. 124, 48 N. W. 716; Kits v. P., 81 111. 600; Under- 846; P. v. Hennessey, 15 Wend. (N. hill Cr. Ev., § 2S2; S. v. Walton, 62 Y.) 147; Fleener v. S., 58 Ark. 98, Me. 106; S. v. O'Kean, 35 La. 901; 2 23 S. W. 1; S. v. Kusnick, 45 Ohio Bish. New Cr. L., § 325. See Ex St. 535, 4 Am. St. 564, 15 N. E. 481. parte Hedley, 31 Cal. Ill; P. v. "Ex parte Hedley, 31 Cal. 109. Gallagher, 100 Cal. 466, 35 Pac. 80; See Pullman v. S., 78 Ala. 31, 56 S. V. Poster, 1 Pen. (Del.) 289, 40 Am. R. 21; S. v. Snell, 9 R. I. 112; Atl. 939. The "property of another" P. v. Cobler, 108 Cal. 538, 41 Pac. means property not owned by the 401; Webb v. S., 8 Tex. App. 310i accused in whole or in part: S. v. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 281. (134) § 494 EMBEZZLEMENT, 135 erty he takes. It differs from larceny in this respect, that the prop- erty comes lawfully into his possession and is unlawfully taken by him.^ The offense of embezzlement, while necessarily akin to larceny, and generally regarded as of that family, is nevertheless a separate and distinct offense and essentially variant from the latter; these offenses do not overlap each other.* § 494. Obtaining order by fraud. — Inducing an imbecile to give an order for a pension check for money, on the pretense of attending to the business of such imbecile, and the conversion of the same to one's own use, is embezzlement, the order having been obtained by fraud.^ § 485. Statute making embezzlement larceny, — The statute of Illi- nois provides that "whoever embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, etc.," money or property delivered or entrusted to him, which may be the subject of larceny, "shall be deemed guilty of larceny." Such statute does not merge the two offenses or make embezzlement larceny.' § 496, Fiduciary relation. — Where a person is charged with em- bezzling money or property which came to his possession "by virtue of his office or employment," as provided by statute, it must appear that he received the monej^ or property by virtue of his ofBce or em- ployment.' Before embezzlement can be maintained it must appear that the property was delivered to the accused in some fiduciary capac- ity — a relation of trust and confidence.* = U. S. v. Lee, 12 Fed. 816; John- Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 128; Hall v. S., son v. P., 113 111. 99; Klbs v. P., 81 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 125; Huntsman v. 111. 599; S. V. Baldwin, 70 Iowa 180, S., 12 Tex. App. 619; Bork v P 30 N. W. 476; P. v. Johnson, 91 Cal. 91 N. Y. 5; S. v. Williams, 40 La. 265, 27 Pac. 663; Com. v. Berry, 99 732, 5 So. 16. Mass. 428, 96 Am. D. 767; S. v. ' P. v. Sherman, 10 Wend. (N. Y ) Wingo, 89 Ind. 206; Smith v. P., 53 298, 25 Am. D. 583; Ex parte Hed- N. Y. 111. ley, 3J Cal. 108; Brady v. S., 21 Tex. •Simco V. S., 8 Tex. App. 406; App. 659, 1 S. W. 462; Griffin v Com. V. Doherty, 127 Mass. 20; S. v. S., 4 Tex. App. 390; Pullman v S Harmon, 106 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 128; 78 Ala. 31, 56 Am. R. 21- Johnson P. v. Belden, 37 Cal. 51; Quinn v. v. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 279- Rex v P., 123 111. 333, 15 N. E. 46. But see Hawtin, 7 C. & P. 281; Reg v Har- Lemiard v. S., 7 Tex. App. 417; S. ris, 6 Cox C. C. 363; S. v. Boliii 110 v. Taberner. 14 R. I. 272, 51 Am. R. Mo. 209, 19 S. W. 650. See Lee v 382; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 282. Com., 8 Ky. L. 53, 1 S W 4- Ree' 'Hobhs V. P., 183 111. 336, 55 N. v. Cullum, 12 Cox C. C 469-' P v ^'er^^l' T, „, , Gallagher, 100 Cal. 466, 35 Pac. 80;' "Klbs V. P., 81 111. 599; Fulton v. Barlow v. P., 78 N. Y 377 S„ 13 Ark. 170; S. v. Harmon, 106 =Lee v. Com., 8 Ky. L. 53, 1 g. 138 hughes' criminal law. § 497 § 497. Fiduciary character wanting. — A statute relating to any public officer embezzling public money which, by law, he is authorized to collect, does not apply where such officer collects and appropriates money which he is not authorized to collect by virtue of his office.' § 498. Fiduciary relation — Exceeding authority. — If a person, as agent, clerk, or servant, in receiving the money or property of his em- ployer, exceeds or violates his authority, he will, nevertheless, be charged as having received it by ''virtue of his office or employment" under the statute. As for example, where the defendant was the agent of an express company, whose duty it was to draw cheeks on the company for its use only, and he drew checks which he was not authorized to draw and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, it was held that he received the money by virtue of his employ- ment.^" It has been held that where one holds himself out as the agent of another, when in fact he is not, and under such as- sumed agency collects money for his alleged principal, which he fraud- ulently converts to his own use, he is guilty of embezzlement, and is estopped from denying his agency.^^ § 499. Criminal intent essential. — In the crime of embezzlement, like larceny, a Criminal intent is an essential element of the ofiense, and will be implied where not expressly required by statute.^^ There "W. 4. See Wylie v. S., 97 Ga. 207, " S. v. Baldwin, 70 Iowa 180, 30 22 S. E. 954; Fulcher v. S., 32 Tex. N. "W. 476; Hamilton v. S., 46 Neb. Or. 621, 25 S. W. 625; Com. v. Hays, 284, 64 N. W. 965; P. v. Wadsworth, 14 Gray (Mass.) 62, 74 Am. D. 662; 63 Mich. 500, 30 N. W. 99; P. v. Griffin v. S., 4 Tex. App. 390; John- Galland, 55 Mich. 628, 22 N. W. 81; son V. Com., 5 Bush (Ky.) 431; S. P. v. Gray, 66 Gal. 271, 5 Pac. 240; v. Stoller, 38 Iowa 321. Beaty v. S., 82 Ind. 228; S.v.Noland, "Moore v. S., 53 Neb. 831, 74 N. Ill Mo. 473, 19 S. W. 715; S. v. Hell- W. 319. See Moore v. U. S., 160 U. wig, 60 Mo. App. 483; S. v. Smith, 47 S. 268, 16 S. Ct. 294. La. 432, 16 So. 938; S. v. Marco, 32 i°Ex parte Hedley, 31 Cal. 109; Or. 175, 50 Pac. 799; Bilers v. S., 34 Rex V. Williams, 6 C. & P. 626. See Tex. Or. 344, 30 S. W. 811; S. v. S. V. Spaulding, 24 Kan. 1; .S. v. Littschke, 27 Or. 189, 40 Pac. 167; Rue, 72 Minn. 296, 75 N. W. 235. Williams v. S., 25 Tex. App. 733, 8 Contra, Rex v. Hawtin, 7 C. & P. S. W. 935 ; Burnett v. S., 60 N. J. L. 281; Rex v. Snowley, 4 C. & P. 390. 255, 37 Atl. 622; Reg. v. Creed, 1 C. See Ex parte Ricord, 11 Nev. 287; & K. 63; S. v. Blue, 17 Utah 175, 53 P. V. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 226, 10 Pac. Pac. 978. See Spalding v. P., 172 111. 502; Reg. v. Hastie, Leigh & C. 269; 40, 49 N. E. 993; S. v. Carkin, 90 Me. Rex V. Rees, 6 C. & P. 606; Rex v. 142, 37 Atl. 878; S. v. Kortgaard, 62 Beacall, 1 C. & P. 457. Minn. 7, 64 N. W. 51; S. v. Adams, "P. v. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 235, 10 108 Mo. 208, 18 S. W. 1000; Robson Pac. 502; S. v. Spaulding, 24 Kan! v. S., 83 Ga. 166, 9 S. E. 610; P. v. 1; S. V. Ezzard, 40 S. C. 312, 18 S. Page, 116 Cal. 386, 48 Pac. 326; S. B. 1025. V. Eastman, 60 Kan. 557, 57 Pac. § 500 EMBEZZLEMENT. 137 can be no embezzlement when there is no intent to defraud. There are eases where one uses the money of another as he has a right to use it, and directly converts it to his own use where the intent will be inferred under the statute, but this is not so in all cases.^' On a charge of embezzlement the defendant is entitled to an instruction that a criminal intent is an essential element of the offense and to refuse such instruction is error.^* § 500. Intent inferred from insolvency. — The receipt of money by a banker deposited when he is insolvent, is prima facie proof of his fraudulent intent to convert it to his own use.^° Where, by stat- ute, it is made embezzlement for a banker to receive deposits when he is insolvent, it can be no defense to say that he did not know of his insolvent condition. He is in duty bound to know that he is solvent, and it is criminal negligence for him not to know of his insolvency.^* § 501. Intent, when immaterial. — The defendant was treasurer of a university, a public corporation, and he, in pledging the bonds of the university which he held as such treasurer, to secure a loan to him- self, is guilty of embezzlement of the bonds, no matter what his spe- cific intention to pay the debt when it became due may have been, •even though he used or intended to use the money obtained by such pledging for the use of the university.'^'^ § 502. Mere receipt not sufficient.— It was error to refuse the fol- lowing instruction on intent : That the mere fact of not paying over -the money by the defendant is not sufficient evidence in itself to con- vict him of a breach of trust with fraudulent intent.^^ 109; S. V. Cunningham, 154 Mo. 161, 43 Atl. 697; S. v. Foster 1 Pen '55 S. W. 282; S. v. Brame, 61 Minn. (Del.) 289, 40 Atl. 939. 101, 63 N. W. 250; S. v. Hopkins, 56 "> Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111 69 Vt. 250; Com. v. Moore, 166 Mass. 45 N. E. 303; Amer. Trust & S Bank 513, 44 N. E. 612. v. Gueder, etc., Mfg. Co., 150 111 " P. V. Wadsworth, 63 Mich. 500, 336, 37 N. E. 227 30 N. W. 99; Fitzgerald v. S., 50 '"Murphy v. P., 19 Bradw (111 N. J. L. 475, 14 Atl. 746; P. v. Gale, App.) 125; Meadowcroft v. P 163 •77 Cal. 120, 19 Pac. 231. The de- 111. 71, 45 N. E. 303. Contra S v fendant in the Wadsworth case was Myers, 54 Kan. 206 38 Pac 296 9 city .treasurer, and, following the Am. C. R. 116. long standing practice, deposited the " Spalding v. P 172 111 40 49 money of the city with a bank, which N. E. 993; Com. v Butterick 'lOO failed, whereby the money was lost. Mass. 1. See S. v. Manley 107 Mo Held a good defense. 364, 17 S W 800 "S. v. Temple, 63 N. J. L. 375, "S. v. Butler,' 21 S C 353 5 138 hughes' criminal law, § 503S § 503. Notes, bills, included. — Promissory notes, bank bills, bonds,, stocks and bills of exchange are included in the term "money and property."^® § 504. Value, when material. — The value of the property embez- zled is not a material element of the offense, unless made so by, statr ute, but the property must have some value.^" § 505. Larceny — ITot embezzlement. — The possession of the serv- ant is always deemed the possession of the master, and if he disposes; of his master's goods to his own use he is guilty of larceny and noi embezzlement.^'- Where the thing embezzled came to the possession: of the servant out of the ordinary course of employment in pursuance' of special direction from the master to receive it, the act came within^ the meaning of the statute.^^ A clerk of a bank having charge and access to the funds or money of the bank, and entrusted with the safe- keeping thereof, is the possessor by his employment.^' § 506. Pledging property entrusted. — Where an agent or servant,, for the purpose of raising money for his own use, pawns or pledges, the property of his employer, which has been entrusted to him, or by any other means fraudulently converts the property to his own use,, he will be guilty of embezzlement.^* § 507. Agent collecting and appropriating. — ^An agent engaged in the service of another at selling goods on commission or percentage. Am. C. R. 208. See Robinson v. '^ Cobletz v. S., 36 Tex. 353, 1 S., 109 Ga. 564, 35 S. E. 57; S. v. Green C. R. 647; Warmoth v. Com., Eastman, 60 Kan. 557, 57 Pac. 109. 81 Ky. 133; Roeder v. S., 39 Tex. »» Com. V. Stearns, 2 Met. (Mass.) Cr. 199, 45 S. W. 570. See "Larceny." 343; P. V. Williams, 60 Cal. 1; Bork ^" S. v. Costin, 89 N. C. 511, 4 Am. V. P., 91 N. Y. 5; S. v. Orwig, 24 C. R. 171, citing Rex v. Smith, Russ: ^ Iowa 102; S. v. White, 66 Wis. 343, & R. 51.6; Rex v. Hughes, 1 Moody 28 N. W. 202; Com. v. Concannon, 370; P. v. Dalton, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 5 Allen (Mass.) 502. See Rex v. 581. Bazeley, 2 Leach 973; Rex v. Mead, ''"Ker v. P., 110 111. 627; 1 Mc- 4 C. & P. 535. Clain Or. L., § 634. =°P. V. Bork, 78 N. Y. 346; Wol- =* Morehouse v. S., 35 Neb. 645, verton v. Com., 75 Va. 909; P. v. 53 N. W. 571; McAleer v. S., 46 Neb. Salorse, 62 Cal. 139; Reg. v. Mor- 116, 64 N. W. 358; S. v. Rue, 72 Minn, ris, 9 C. & P. 349; Washington v. S., 296, 75 N. W. 235; Calkins v. S., IS 72 Ala. 272; Perry v. S., 22 Tex. App. Ohio St. 366, 98 Am. D. 121; S. v. 19, 2 S. W. 600; S. v. Mook, 40 Ohio Hill, 47 Neb. 456, 66 N. W. 541; S. St. 588; Gerard v. S., 10 Tex. App. v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 S. W. 690; Harris v. S., 21 Tex. App. 478, 1000; Penny v. S., 88 Ala. 105, 7 2 S. W. 830. So. 50. § 508 EMBEZZLEMENT. 139' and who is authorized to make collections on his sales, will be guilty of embezzlement in appropriating to his own use money so colleeted,. where by the terms of his employment he is required to remit such col- lections to his principal and is not permitted to mingle the same with his own money.^^ But if the agent, by the terms of his employment,, is authorized to mingle money collected by him for his principal with his own or otherwise dispose of it, as to use it in his own business and pay interest for the use of it, his act is not criminal.^" § 508. Bailee converting. — A bailee having obtained lawful pos- session of property without fraudulent intent can not be convicted of larceny in appropriating it to his own use while he is such bailee, but will be liable under the statute of embezzlement.^^ But if, at the time property is delivered to a person as a bailee, he entertains a criminal intent to convert the same to his own use, he will be guilty of larceny and not embezzlement.^^ § 509. Agent includes. — The term "agent" includes all cases where one person in a distinct capacity is authorized to represent another. And it is by the authority delegated to him that an agent transacts- some particular business for his principal.^" An attorney is an agent within the meaning of the term "agent, clerk or servant."'" § 510. Persons, when not "agents." — Persons who follow the busi- ness of making collections on commission as an independent business- are not regarded as "agents" under the statutes relating to embezzle- ''^Com. v. Smith, 129 Mass. 109; See S. v. Taberner, 14 R. I. 272, 57 Brandenstein v. Way, 17 Wash. 293, Am. R. 382. 49 Pac. 511; Campbell v. S., 35 Ohio ^»Whar. Cr. L. (8th ed.), §§ 1053a- St. 70; P. v. Civille, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 1055; Reg. v. Cesser, 13 Cox C. 497. See Morehouse v. S., 35 Neb. C. 187; Pullman v. S., 78 Ala. 643, 53 N. W. 571. 31, 56 Am. R. 21; P. v. Treadwell, ''"Com. v. Stearns, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 69 Cal. 236, 10 Pac. 502; Lang v. S.^ 343; Miller v. S., 16 Neb. 179, 20 N. 97 Ala. 41, 12 So. 183; S. v. Smith,. W. 253. See also S. v. Baumhager, 57 Kan. 6o7, 47 Pac. 535; S. v. Hub- 28 Minn. 226, 9 N. W. 704. bard, 58 Kan. 797, 51 Pac. 290; Com. "P. V Husband, 36 Mich. 309; v. Foster, 107 Mass. 221; George v. Com. V. Doherty, 127 Mass. 20; P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. E. 741; Camp- Moore V. U. S., 160 U. S. 269, 16 S. bell v. S., 35 Ohio St. 76. See Ct. 294; Johnson v. P., 113 111. 99; Napoleon v. S., 3 Tex. App. 522. Reg. V. Aden, 12 Cox C. C. 512. '"In re Converse, 42 Fed. 217; S. =* Smith V. P., 53 N. Y. Ill, 13 Am. v. Smith, 57 Kan. 657, 47 Pac. 535; R. 474; P. V. Johnson, 113 111. 99; P. v. Converse. 74 Mich. 478, 42 N.. Quinn v. P., 123 111. 333, 15 N. B. W. 70. See P. v. Treadwell, 69 Cal. 46; P. V. Salorse, 62 Cal. 139; S. v. 226, 10 Pac. 502; George v. P., 167 Coombs, 55 Me. 477, 92 Am. D. 610. 111. 417, 47 N. E. 741. 140 hughes' criminal law. § 511 ment. But persons collecting for their employers, not as an inde- pendent business, are agents under the statute.^^ An ordinary agent will not be included in the statute which enumerates bankers, brokers, attorneys, or other agents fraudulently converting to their own use the money or property of another. The words "or other agent" will be limited to the classes of agents previously enumerated.^^ § 511. Agent, bailee, receiver. — A "bailee or agent" is not a "clerk or servant" within the meaning of the statute relating to embezzle- naent. It must appear that the defendant is within the class of per- sons named in the statute.^ ^ A receiver is not an agent under a statute making any agent guilty of embezzlement who, on demand, shall refuse to his employer any money which has come to his pos- session by virtue of his employment.** § 512. Casual employment. — A mere casual employment, such as where the defendant "went on errands" for the prosecutor, does not fall within the meaning of the statute relating to embezzlement. The •employment referred to in the statute must be the regular employ- ment as agent, clerk, officer and the like.*° The prosecuting witness gave the defendant a check to get cashed at a bank and to bring to him the money. The defendant obtained the money and appropriated it to his own use. The defendant had occasionally worked for the prosecuting witness, but was not in his employ that day. He was to be paid sixpence for fetching the money: Held that he was not a servant of the prosecuting witness.*' § 513. When not "clerk or servant." — A person whose duty it is to obtain orders for goods when and where he pleases and who forwards " Stone V. Com., 20 Ky. L. 478, 46. 447; Reed v. S., 16 Tex. App. 586. S. W. 721; Clark v. Com., 16 Ky. L. » S. v. Hubbard, 58 Kan. 797, 51 703, 29 S. W. 973; S. v. Butler, 26 Pac. 290. Minn. 90, 1 N. W. 821; Campbell v. ""Rex v. Hawtin, 7 C. & P. 281; S., 35 Ohio St. 70; P. v. Hanaw, 107 Johnson v. S., 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 279; Mich. 337, 65 N. W. 231; S. v. New, Reg. v. Mayle, 11 Cox C. C. 150; 22 Minn. 76. See S. v. Smith, 57 Colip v. S., 153 Ind. 584, 55 N. B. Kan. 657, 47 Pac. 535. 739. Contra, Pullman v. S., 78 Ala. =^Reg. V. Portugal, L. R. 16 Q. B. 31, 56 Am. R. 21; S. v. Foster, 37 D. 487. See Terry v. S., 1 Wash. Iowa 404; S. v. Barter, 58 N. H. 604; •277, 24 Pac. 447. S. v. Costin, 89 N. C. 511; Reg. v. °'Reg. V. Negus, 12 Cox C. C. 492; Thomas, 6 Cox C. C. 403. See Foster Reg. V. Mayle, 11 Cox C. C. 150. See v. S. (Del., 1899), 43 Atl. 265. •Spalding v. P., 172 111. 45, 49 N. B. =» Rex v. Freeman, 5 C. & P. 534. •993; Terry v. S., 1 Wash. 277, 24 Pac. See Reg. v. Hoare, 1 F. & F. 647. § 514 EMBEZZLEMENT. 141 such orders to his principal to be filled, and then has three months within which to collect the money for the goods sent, is not a "clerk or servant" within the meaning of the statute.^^ One may be a servant of two or more persons at the same time within the meaning of the law relating to embezzlement.^^ § 514. Clerk or servant — How determined. — The mode of coijipen- sation, whether by commission or otherwise, does not determine whether one is a clerk or servant. It depends upon the nature of the employ- ment.^^ The language of the statute does not exempt from its opera- tion agents or servants who receive no compensation for their services or agents or servants who are not employed in a general continuous service.*" § 515. Principal liable for agent's acts. — The receipt of deposits by the agent of a bank in the usual course of business, in the absence of officers or persons carrying on the business, is the receipt of the officers or such persons, and they will be liable criminally for the acts of their agent, if they knew of the insolvency of the bank at the time.*^ § 516. Public officer refusing to deliver. — An officer entrusted with the care and custody of public funds who refuses or neglects to deliver to his successor in office the public money in his possession when de- mand is made on him, is guilty of embezzlement, and such refusal is prima facie evidence of his guilt.*^ § 517. Officer de facto liable. — An officer de facto is punishable the same as an officer de jure on a charge of embezzlement, the crime in both cases being of the same ill consequences to the public, and there seems to be no reason that a wrongful officer should have any greater favor than a rightful officer." "Reg. V. Mayle, 11 Cox C. C. 150; Reg. v. Smith, 1 C. & K. 423. But Reg. V. Turner, 11 Cox C. C. 557. see Reg. v. White, 8 C. & P. 742. See Queen v. Negus, 2 Cr. Cas. Res. " Carr v. S., 104 Ala. 4, 16 So 34, 1 Am. C. R. 150. 150, 10 Am. C. R. 84; S. v. Cadwell, "■Reg. V. Bailey, 12 Cox C. C. 56; 79 Iowa 432, 44 N. W. 700. Rex V. Leech, 3 Stark. 70; S. v. ■■" S. v. Ring, 29 Minn. 78, 11 N. Heath, 8 Mo. App. 107. W. 23.3; S. v. Mason, 108 Ind. 48, ™Reg. v. Walker, 8 Cox C. C. 1; 8 N. B. 716; S. v. Hunnicut, 34 Ark Reg. v. Hall, 13 Cox C. C. 49; Reg. 562; P. v. Seeley, 117 Mich. 263, 75 V. Tlte, Leigh & C. 29; Reg. v. N. W. 609; Whitney v. S., 53 Neb. Bailey, 12 Cox C. C. 56. 287, 73 N. W. 696. "S. V. Barter, 58 N. H. 604; S. v. "3 Hawk. P. C, ch. 19, §§ 23 28- Brooks, 85 Iowa 366, 52 N. W. 240; S. v. Goss, 69 Me. 22, 3 Am. C. R 142 hughes' criminal law. § 518 § 518. "OfB.cer" includes school treasurer. — A statute relating to "public officers" for the embezzlement of funds intrusted to them includes a township treasurer of school funds, and is a distinct offense from that provided by the school law against such township treas- urer." § 519. "Clerk" not an "officer." — The embezzlement of public funds by "any officer or other person charged with the safe keeping, transfer and disbursement of such public funds" will not include clerks or servants of such public officers."" But under statute, "any person who aids, abets or advises" a public officer in the embezzlement of pub- lic funds is guilty of embezzlement, no matter whether he is an officer intrusted with such public funds or not."^ § 520. Public officer included. — The treasurer of the University of Illinois is a public officer within the meaning of the statute relating to embezzlement committed by any "state, county, township, city, town, village or other officer elected or appointed," although the university is not a mu.nicipal corporation.*^ § 521. Constable not included. — The statute of Illinois providing that: "Whoever embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, or secretes with intent to embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, money or property delivered to him, which maj^ be the subject of larceny, shall be deemed guilty of larceny," can have no application to a constable who collects money on an execution and converts it to his own use. There is another section of the statute which applies to a constable or other officer.*^ § 522. State treasurer. — A state treasurer or deputy of that office who takes money from the treasury or wrongfully diverts it from its 67; S. V. Sellers, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 368; "Moore v, S., 53 Neh. 831, 74 N. Diggs V. S., 49 Ala. 311; S. v. Stone, W. 319; S. v. Meyers, 56 Ohio St. 40 lov/a 547. See also Hartley v. S., 340, 47 N. E. 138. Contra, S. v. 53 Neb. 310, 73 N. W. 744; S. v. Exnicios, 33 La. 253; Gulp v. Com., Spaulcling, 24 Kan. 1; P. v. Cobler, 109 Pa. St. 363; P. v. Gray, 66 Cal. 108 Cal. 538, 41 Pac. 401; Forten- 271, 5 Pac. 240; U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 berry v. S., 56 Miss. 286; S. v. Mc- "Wall. 385. Entyre, 3 Ired. 171. "» Mills v. S., 53 Neb. 263, 73 N. W. "Johnson v. P., 123 111. 625, 15 N. 761; Brown v. S., 18 Ohio St. 497. E. 37. See Shivers v. S., 53 Ga. 149 "Spalding v. P., 172 111. 45, 49 (tax collector); Com. v. Morrlsey, N. E. 993. 86 Pa. St. 416; S. v. Walton, 62 Me. « Stoker v. P., 114 111. 323, 2 N. B. 106, 2 Green C. R. 467; S. v. Brandt, 55; Zschoeke v. P., 62 111. 128; P. v. 41 Iowa 594; S. v. Grlswold, 73 Conn. Allen, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 76. .95, 46 Atl. 829 (collector). <§ 523 EMBEZZLEMENT. 143 3)roper use, with intent to use it for his own private benefit, will be guilty of embezzlement.*" § 523. Public officers, includes assistants. — Under the federal stat- utes relating to embezzlement by public officers having the custody or control of public funds, are included clerks of the treasurer or as- sistant treasurer, paymasters in the army and clerks of the post- .office.^o § 524. Officer of national bank — Director. — Under the federal ; statute making it embezzlement for any officer of a national bank to wrongfully abstract or willfully misapply the funds of the bank, : a director in obtaining money from the bank by over-draft, knowing ■he has no money to his credit in the bank, and fraudulently converts the same to his own use, is guilty of embezzlement.'*'- Cashiers and tellers of national banks come within the statute.'*^ Article II. Matters op Defejstse. § 525. When false pretense and not embezzlement. — Where the owner of goods alleged to have been stolen parts with both possession and the title to the goods to the alleged thief, embezzlement will not lie; it amounts to fraud, and obtaining goods by false pretenses.'''' § 526. Owner can not embezzle. — No one can be guilty of stealing •or embezzling that which belongs to him or in which he has an inter- . est as partner and of which he is legally entitled to the possession.'** "S. v. Brandt, 41 Iowa 593; Bart- Mass. 1; U. S. v. Taintor, 11 Blatchf. ley v. S., 53 Neb. 310, 73 N. W. 744; 374; S. v. TuUer, 34 Conn. 281. P. v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54; Hem- "» Welsh v. P., 17 111. 339; Stinson ingway v. S., 68 Miss. 371, 8 So. 317; v. P., 43 111. 398. S. V. Munch, 22 Minn. 67; S. v. « S. v. Reddiok, 2 S. Dak. 124 8 Archer, 73 Md. 44, 20 Atl. 172; S. Am. C. R. 205, 48 N W 846- S v v. Noland, 111 Mo. 473, 19 S. W. Kent, 22 Minn. 41, 21 Am R 764 715. See Moore v. S., 53 Neb. 831, 2 Am. C. R. 107; Carter v S 53 Ga' 74 N. W. 319, relating to a state 326; S. v. Butman, 61 N. H. 511; ^"ilT""";, ^^^y ^- Northwestern, etc.. Aid '°U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; Ass'n, 87 Iowa 25, 53 N W 1086- TJ. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168. But see Van Etten v. S., 24 Neb 734 40 N TJ. S V. Smith, 124 V. S. 525, 8 S. W. 289. See S. v. Snell,'9 R.'l 112* -Ct 595. 1 Green C. R. 533; Reg. v. TafCs, 4 2^- ?• ^- Warner, 26 Fed. 616. Cox C. C. 169; Com. v Berry 99 "» Cochran v. U. S., 157 U. S. 286, Mass. 428, 96 Am. D 761- S v .15 S. Ct. 628; Com. v. Barry, 116 Kusnick, 45 Ohio St. 535, 15 N. e! 144 hughes' criminal law. § 527 Having an interest only in the profits of a business, such as commis- sions, as agent, does not make the def eiidant a partner in the owner- ship of the property or capital of the copartnership.^' A person who, by virtue of his agency, receives money of his employer, out of which he is entitled to a commission, is not guilty of embezzlement in ap- propriating the whole of the money to his own use.'° § 527. Fraternal society — Not partners. — A fraternal and benevo- lent association, organized not for profit in conducting its business, but for the mutual benefit of its members, is not a partnership in the sense of joint owners, with joint possession, and any one of its mem- bers will not be relieved from prosecution for embezzlement in appro- priating to his own use the money of the association coming to his hands.''' §528. Cashier — Taking what due. — The cashier of a mercantile, house, having charge of the money of the concern, being about to leave their employment, took of the money of the firm in his hands the amount due him as the balance of his salary, without the knowl- edge and against the wish of his employers and charged the same against himself on the books of the firm. This is not embezzlement ; the employe did only what he had a right to do.'^ Where a person takes property and converts it to his own use under an honest belief that he is part owner, he is not guilty of embezzlement.'' § 529. Officer — ^Not debtor, but custodian. — Under a statute requir- ing the treasurer of public funds to select some responsible depository where the funds would bear interest, and requiring him to account for such interest, he does not become the owner of the funds, making him liable merely as a debtor to account for whatever balance might be due. He is still regarded as custodian or keeper of the funds, and 481, 4 Am. St. 564; Reg. v. Watts, Am. C. R. 107; Com. v. Foster, 107 2 Denlson 14; 1 Hale P. C. 513; Mass. 221. Dancy v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 53 S. " S. v. Campbell, 59 Kan. 246, 52 W. 886; S. V. Keith, 126 N. C. 1114, Pac. 454. 36 S. E. 169. " Ross v. Innis, 35 111. 488, 85 Am. "Com. V. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443. D. 373; Beaty v. S., 82 Ind. 228. See See Reg. v. McDonald, Leigh & C. P. v. Bldleman, 104 Cal. 608, 38 Pac. 85; Dancy v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 502; Reg. v. Hodgson, 3 C. & P. 422; 53 S. W. 886; S. v. Collins, 1 Marv. Reg. v. Norman, 1 C. & M. 501; S. v. (Del.) 536, 41 Atl. 144. Foster, 1 Pen. (Del.) 289, 40 Atl. "» Stone V. Com., 20 Ky. L. 478, 46 939; P. v. Lapique, 12t) Cal. 25, 52 S. W. 721; S. V. Kent, 22 Minn. 41, 2 Pac. 40. " Phelps V. P.. 55 111. 337. § 530 -BMBEZZLEMENT. ' 145 the fiduciary character remains the same as hefore the enactment of the statute.'" § 530. Debtor and creditor, when. — Where an employe, to secure the faithful' discharge of the duties of his employment, deposits money with his employer, he thereby creates the relation of debtor and cred- itor and not the relation of bailee and bailor, and a refusal to pay the money so deposited is not embezzlement.®^ Where, by the terms of a contract between the principal and his agent, it appears that the agent may, use the money of his employer and pay interest thereon for the; time retained by him, he will not be guilty in appropriating his em- ployer's money to his own use, even though he is required to remit all money as soon as collected."'' § 531. Debtor and creditor, when. — If money be put in the hands of a person to be loaned by him at ten per cent, interest for one year, and he afterward pays back to the owner a part of it, with interest on the whole amount to a future date, promising to pay the balance on thirty days' notice, but fails to do so, and converts the money to his. own use, this does not constitute embezzlement."* A mere breach of a contract or trust can not be enforced in the criminal courts."* § 532. Commission merchant, liable. — A commission merchant who' converts to his own use the proceeds of a sale of goods intrusted to' him is guilty of embezzlement, and it is no defense that he sent his check for the proceeds according to agreement, he having no funds in the bank on which it was drawn to pay."' § 533, Bank deposits— A loan.— Some of the courts hold that a deposit of money in a bank is in the nature of a loan and that the '"Dreyer v. P., 176 111. 590, 599, Tex. App. 310; McAleer v. S., 4ff. 52 N. B. 372. Neb. 116, 64 N. W. 358. Compare " Mulford V. P., 139 111. 586, 28 N. S. v. Barton, 125 N. C. 702, 34 S. E. E. 1096. See Hamilton v. S., 46 553. See S. v. Thompson, 155 Mo Neb. 284, 64 N. W. 965. But see 300, 55 S. W. 1013. P. V. Evans, 69 Hun 222, 23 N. Y. "Kribs v. P., 82 111. 426. See S Supp. 717; P. V. Gottschalk, 66 Hun v. Covert, 14 Wash. 652, 45 Pac. 304- 64, 20 N. Y. Supp. 777, 137 N. Y. S. v. Cooper, 102 Iowa 146, 71 N YsT 569, 33 N. E. 339; Underbill Cr. Ev., 197; Rauguth v. P., 186 111 93 57 § 285; S. V. Mahan, 138 Mo. 112, 39 N. E. 832; Young v. Glendinning S- W. 465. 194 Pa. St. 550, 45 Atl. 364. •^Miller v. S., 16 Neb. 179, 20 N. "Webb v. S., 8 Tex. App. 310- w. 253. See S. v. Baumhager, 28 Com. v. Havs, 14 Gray (Mass ) 62 Minn. 226, 9 N. W. 704; Leonard v. 74 Am. D. 662. S., 7 Tex. App. 417; Webb v. S., 8 ™Warriner v. P., 74 III. 349. hughes' c. l.— 10 146 hughes' criminal law. § 534 banker can not be held criminally liable merely because he fails to pay such deposit and makes an assignment, unless it appears that he fraud- ulently appropriated the money to his own use."" § 534. Collector, when not liable. — Ferguson was the tax collector for the city, whose duty it was to account to the city treasurer. The defendant was in his employ as clerk and cashier. It was the duty of the defendant to account to Ferguson. It was held that the failure -of either to account to the city treasurer for any moneys collected by them did not make either of them guilty of larceny, the money having been received without fraud and as a matter of right.'''' § 535. Treasurer depositing in his name. — The mere deposit of money by the treasurer of an association to his own private account will not of itself sustain a charge of embezzlement."' § 536. Public officer, defense. — ^A public of&eer in his defense to a ■charge of embezzlement has a right to show that the bank with which he deposited the money and funds had failed, that he had been robbed, and the like."* § 537. Estoppel, no application to criminal. — The defendant, coun- ty treasurer, was entitled to show as a defense that he made settlement with the county board with worthless and spurious certificates of de- posit instead of cash, and that whatever money he may have converted to his own use was three years before his indictment. The rule of estoppel has no application to criminal prosecutions.'"' § 538. General deficiency insufficient. — A general deficiency in an account is not sufiicient proof of embezzlement. A specific sum must be alleged and proven, though not necessary to prove the whole of the specific sum alleged.^^ "» P. v. Wadswor'th, 63 Mich. 500, See P. v. Page, 116 Cal. 386, 48 Pac. 30 N. W. 99; Com. v. Rockafellow, 326. 163 Pa. St. 139, 29 Atl. 757; Collins "S. v. Bryan, 40 Iowa 379. Com- T. S., 33 Fla. 429, 15 So. 214. pare Burnett v. S., 62 N. J. L. 510, "Snapp v. Com., 82 Ky. 173, 6 41 Atl. 719. Am. C. R. 184. See Queen v. ™ S. v. Hutchinson, 60 Iowa 478, Foulkes, 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 150, 1 Am. 15 N. W. 298, 4 Am. C. R. 163; 1 <:. R. 154. McClain Cr. L., § 649. "' P. v. Royce, 106 Cal. 173, 37 Pac. " Reg. v. Wolstenholme, 11 Cox C. «30, 39 Pac. 524; Fleener v. S., 58 C. 313; Rex v. Murray, 5 C. & P. 145; Ark. 98, 23 S. W. 1; S. v. Bryan, 40 1 Whar. Cr. L., § 1044. Contra, see Iowa 379; S. v. O'Kean, 35 La. 901. 1 McClain Cr. L., § 640. •§ 539 EMBEZZLEMENT. 147 § 539. Return of property no defense. — The crime of embezzlement having in fact been committed, a return of the property embezzled or settlement with the owner will be no defense.''^ § 540. "Decoy" letter, no defense. — It is no defense to a charge of embezzlement from the United States mails that the defendant was detected by means of "decoy" letters.'' § 541. Corporation doing unlawful business. — That a foreign corporation had failed to comply with the laws of a state in which it was doing business is no defense to a charge of embezzlement of its money by an agent of such corporation.'* § 542. Proceeds of lottery ticket. — It is no defense to a prosecution for embezzlement of money collected by an agent that he collected it on a lottery ticket issued and sold contrary to the law.'' § 543. Misappropriating bank's money. — The cashier of a bank, by using the money of the bank in stock speculations which he carried on with stock brokers in his own name, is guilty of embezzlement, al- though the officers of the bank knew and sanctioned this use of the bank's funds.'" § 544. Depreciation of assets. — The fact that a bank becomes in- solvent through depreciation in values of assets incident to the gen- eral monetary condition of the country, or through business disas- ters, for which the accused is not accountable, is no defense to a charge of receiving deposits when the bank was insolvent, unless such " Robson V. S., 83 Ga. 166, 9 S. E. following cases illustrate the same 610; P. V. De Lay, 80 Cal. 52, 22 principle: Com. v. Cooper, 130 Mass. Pac. 90; S. v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482, 11 285; S. v. O'Brien, 94 Tenn. 79, 28 S. W. 977; Fleener v. S., 58 Ark. S. "W. 311; S. v. Shadd, 80 Mo. 358; 88, 23 S. W. 1; S. v. Noland, 111 Com. v. Smith, 129 Mass. 104; S. v Mo. 473, 19 S. W. 715. Cloutman, 61 N. H. 143; P. v. Haw- "U. S. v. Dorsey, 40 Fed. 752; kins, 106 Mich. 479, 64 N. W 736- ■Goode V. U. S., 159 U. S. 663, 16 Leonard v. S., 7 Tex. App 417 S. Ct. 136; U. S. V. Wight, 38 Fed. Compare S. v. Cunningham, 154 106; U. S. V. Berthea, 44 Fed. 802; Mo. 161, 55 S. W. 282; Com v TJ. S. V. Jones, 80 Fed. B13; Walster Shissler (Pa. 1898), 7 Pa. Dist R T. U. S., 42 Fed. 891. 344. » S. V. Pohlmeyer, 59 Ohio St. 491, "U. S. v. Taintor, 11 Blatchf. 374, ^^ILr^-}^^''- 2 Green C. R. 242; 1 McClain Cr. L., "Woodward v. S., 103 Ind. 127, § 641. 2 N. E. 321, 5 Am. C. R. 214. The 148 hughes' criminal law. § 545 .depreciation caused such insolvent condition of the bank after such deposit was received.''' Article III. Indictment. § 545. Fiduciary character essential. — The defendant's fiduciary char^ter, which is the distinguishing feature between embezzlement, and. larceny, must be specially averred in the indictment.^' The in- dictment must set out the facts of embezzlement and then aver that the defendant committed larceny.'* Where the property of the owner was delivered to the defendant by virtue of a contract between them,^ as by hiring or borrowing the property, the indictment will be defective- in failing to allege such fiduciary relation of the parties.'" An in- dictment alleging that the defendant was the servant, agent, attorney and bailee of his employer and occupied a fiduciary relation to him, sufficiently states the fiduciary relation without setting out the agree- ment showing the facts which made the defendant the servant or agent of his employer.'^ § 546. Statutory words. — An indictment substantially in the lan- guage of the statute is sufficient.'^ Where a criminal statute is not to- receive a construction as broad as the language used would seem to warrant, but is narrowed by construction, an indictment in the lan- guage of the statute will not be sufficient : as where the indictment against a public officer for a failure to turn over the public money to his successor, was defective in failing to allege his act to have been felonious.'* § 547. Description of money. — ^An indictment alleging the embez- zlement of "ninety dollars in paper money of the value of ninety dol- lars and two dollars in silver money of the value of two dollars," is sufficient description.'* An indictment simply alleging the sum of " Carr v. S., 104 Ala. 4, 16 So. 150, S. W. 302; Calkins v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 10 Am. C. R. 85. 251, 29 S. W. 1081. "Kibs V. P., 81 111. 599; S. v. "P. v. Dorthy, 46 N. Y. Supp. 970, Stevenson, 91 Me. 107, 39 Atl. 471; 20 App. Div. 308; Gebhardt v. S. P. V. Cohen, 8 Cal. 42; P. v. Tryon, (Tex. Cr.), 27 S. W. 136. 4 Mich. 665; Rex v. Johnson, 3 M. »^Lycan v. P., 107 111. 423; Ker v. & S. 539; Com. v. Smart, 6 Gray P., 110 111. 627; Goodhue v. P., 94 (Mass.) 15. See Moore v. U. S., 160 111. 39 (form). U. S. 268, 10 Am. C. R. 284, 16 S. «' Stropes v. S., 120 Ind. 562, 22 Ct. 294. N. E. 773. " Kibs V. P., 81 111. 600. But see " Cody v. S., 100 Ga. 105, 28 S. B. S. V. Reinhart, 26 Or. 466, 38 Pac. 106. See Walker v. S., 117 Ala. 42, 822; S. v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 ?3 So. 149; S. v. Alverson, 105 Iowa S. W. 1000. 1-52, 74 N. W. 770. " Smith V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 232, 42 § 548 EMBEZZLEMENT. 149 money embezzled and stating the value, is sufficient without alleging it to be lawful money of the United States. Such allegation is sur- plusage.*' An indictment alleging the description of the money embezzled as "current money of the United States," a more particular description being to the grand jurors unknown, is sufficient.'* § 548. Description of money — ^Value. — In charging the offense of embezzlement of money, under a statute relating to the embezzlement of money, bullion and the like, and providing that a general descrip- tion is sufficient, without specifying any particulars, an indictment jieed not aver the value of the money alleged to have been embezzled.*^ § 549. Description of instrument — "Funds." — An indictment al- leging the embezzlement of "fifty pieces of paper," each of a certain value stated, is sufficient description of the property. *' An indict- ment alleging that the defendant embezzled the "funds" of the ■owner of the value of an amount stated, is not sufficient description of the property, the word "funds" including several species of prop- ■erty.^^ § 550. Ownership — Defective. — ^An indictment charging an insur- ance agent with the embezzlement of money received as premiums, which he failed to account for, is defective in not alleging to whom i;he money belonged.*" But the indictment need not allege the owner- ship under a statute not making ownership an element of the crime -defined.'^ § 551. Demand, when not essential. — It is not necessary to allege •or prove a demand to pay money or deliver property, if such demand is not made an element of the crime by the statute.'^ When a banker »° P. V. Heame, 66 Hini 626, 20 ^ S. v. Stearns, 28 Or. 262, 42 Pac. N. Y. Supp. 806; S. v. Noland, 111 615; Grant v. S., 35 Fla. 581, 17 So. Mo. 473, 19 S. W. 715. See Brown 225! See Com. v. Haggel, 7 Kulp V. P., 173 111. 34, 50 N. E. 106. (Pa.) 10. "Fleener v. S., 58 Ark. 98, 23 S. »' S. v. Fricker, 45 La. 646, 12 So. W. 1; EdelhofC v. S., 5 Wyom. 19, 755. 36 Pac. 627. See S. v. Combs, 47 "^'EdelhofE v. S., 5 Wyom. 19, 36 Kan. 136, 27 Pac. 818; McBride v. Pac. 627, 9 Am. C. R. 259; S. v. U. S., 101 Fed. 821 (officer) New, 22 Minn. 76; Wallis v. S., 54 "Com. V. Warner, 113 lMrass^^41, Ark. 611, 16 S. W. 821; Com. v. 54 N. E. 353. See S. v. Aiverson, Hussey, 111 Mass. 432; Alderman v. 105 Iowa 152, 74 N. W. 770. S., 57 Ga. 367; Leonard v. S., 7 Tex. =*Com. v. Parker, 165 Mass. 526, App. 419; S. v. Tompkins, 32 La. -43 N. E. 499. 620. '° U. S. v. Grave, 65 Fed. 488. 15D hughes' criminal law. § 552; suspends payment and closes his doors against depositors and cred- itors and discontinues banking operations, he waives the necessity for a demand by depositors. In such case it is not necessary to allege or prove a demand."' Where, by statute, a demand is required for the money or property, the demand should be made in such manner as to fairly apprise the party that he would be subject to the penalties of the statute if he failed to comply."* § 552. Duplicity — ^When not. — The indictment charging in the language of the statute that the defendant did unlawfully and felo- niously "make way with, secrete and convert to his own use" the- money of the owner, states but one cffense.°° § 553. Duplicity. — An indictment alleging the ownership of the property embezzled to be in C. B., as administrator, to collect, and in C. B., as administrator generally of the estate of F. E., deceased, is .sufficient where it appears from the indictment that the several transactions in the conversion of the several securities form a part of one entire transaction."" § 554. Duplicity. — Charging embezzlement in the indictment in the usual form and then concluding by alleging that the defendant, "the property embezzled, in manner and form aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away," is not bad for duplicity."' § 555. Public officer — ^Averring. — In an indictment against a pub- lic officer for embezzlement of public moneys, it is not necessary to al- lege that he was duly elected or appointed, or that he qualified as such officer; it is sufficient to allege that he was a "public officer" in general terms, naming the office."' "» Meadowcroft V. P., 163 111. 82, 45 Pac. ,524; S. v. Bancroft, 22 Kan. N. E. 303. See Dreyer v. P., 176 111. 170. See S. v. Hayes, 59 Kan. 61, 51 590, 52 N. E. 372; Bartley v. S., 53 Pac. 905; Kossakowski v. P., 177 Neb. 310, 73 N. "W. 744; P. v. Van 111. 563, 53 N. E. 115. Ewan, 111 Cal. 144, 43 Pac. 520; S. "=8. v. Manley, 107 Mo. 364, 17 S. V. Flournoy, 46 La. 1518, 16 So. 454; W. 800. See S. v. Howe, 2? Or. 138, P. V. Carter, 122 Mich. 668, 81 N. W. 44 Pac. 672. 924. »° ScMntz v. P., 178 111. 320, 52 N. " Wright V. P., 61 111. 384, 2 Green B. 903. C. R. 558; Warrlner v. P., 74 111. 349; " S. v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1, 19 S. W. S. V. Pierce, 7 Kan. App. 418, 53 Pac. 218; S. v. Adams, 108 Mo. 208, 18 278; S. V. Munch, 22 Minn. 67; P. v. S. W. 1000. Royce, 106 Cal. 173, 37 Pac. 630, 39 ""S. v. Goss, 69 Me. 22, 3 Am. C. § 556 EMBEZZLEMENT. 151 §556. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment alleging that the de- fendant at a certain time was the assignee of certain persons, and in- trusted by them with the care and safe-keeping of certain moneys, stating the amount, and that he did then and there unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously convert the same moneys to his own use,, sufficiently states the offense.*' An indictment alleging that the de- fendant was the president of a certain national bank, and that by virtue of his office he took into his possession certain bonds (describ- ing them), the property of said bank, and appropriated the same to his own use, with intent to defraud the said bank association, is suf- ficient.^"" § 557. "By virtue of his office." — An indictment which clearly and sufficiently alleges the fiduciary relation between the defendant and the owner of the property embezzled, is not defective in not alleging in the words of the statute that the property came to the defendant's; • possession, or under his care "by virtue of his agency, office or employ- ment."i § 558. Bailee or trustee. — An indictment alleging that the defend- ant, being the "bailee and trustee" of certain property, embezzled and converted it to his own use, sufficiently charges larceny as a bailee, the word "trustee" being surplusage.^ § 559. Venue defective. — ^An indictment alleging that the defend- ant received certain money in a certain county, and that thereafter he converted said money to his own use, is defective in not stating that he converted the money to his own use in the county where the prosecution was instituted.* Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 560. False book entries, competent. — False and fraudulent book entries made in books kept by the defendant are conipetent evidence R. 66; S. V. Carkin, 90 Me. 142, 37 ™Claassen v. U. S., 142 U. S. 140, Atl. 878; S. v. Downing, 15 Wash. 12 S. Ct. 169. 413, 46 Pac. 646; P. v. Van Bwan, 111 > Evans v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 54, 48 Cal. 144, 43 Pac. 520; Rex v. Bor- S. W. 194. See Lang v. S., 97 Ala. rett, 6 C. & P. 124. 41, 12 So. 183. " S. V. "Whlteman, 9 Wash. 402, 37 ' S. v. Thompson, 28 Or. 296, 42 Pac. 659. See S. v. Nelson, 79 Minn. Pac. 1002. 388, 82 N. W. 674. = S. v. Mayberry, 9 Wash. 193, 37 Pac. 284. 152 hughes' criminal law. § 561 tending to prove embezzlement, whether made before or after the al- leged embezzlement.* § 561. Boak account as evidence. — The cash-book kept by the bookkeeper, under the direction of the defendant, showed the cash re- ceipts and disbursements. At the close of the day's business the de- fendant would count the cash and furnish a slip to the accountant, who entered the amount and balanced and reported it. Held, prima facie evidence of the balance of cash on hand at the several dates." :■§ 562. By officer : condition of books. — On a charge against a per- son for embezzlement while he was a public officer, the condition of a book relating to the business of the office which came to the hands of his successor, is not competent in the absence of any evidence to show that the book was ever in the possession of the defendant and in the same condition when it was received by such successor." The •conclusion reached by public authorities on making an investigation of the accounts of a public officer having the custody of public funds, is not competent on the trial on a charge of embezzlement.' § 563. Other acts about same time. — Evidence of other acts of «mbezzlement committed about the same time under like circum- stances is admissible to prove guilty intent, but such evidence must ,be limited to proof of intent.* § 564. Eeceipt of other sums. — On a trial of one charged with em- Ijezzlement, receipts of other sums of money by the defendant from the prosecutor, shortly after the receipt of the money which the in- ' Jackson v. S., 76 Ga. 551; Com. (Mass.) 173; Stanley v. S., 88 Ala. T. Bennett, 118 Mass. 448; S. v. 154, 7 So. 273; Reeves v. S., 95 Ala. Baumhager, 28 Minn. 226, 9 N. W. 31, 11 So. 158; P. v. Cobler, 108 Cal. 704; Reg. v. Guelder, 8 Cox C. C. 372. 538, 4 Pac. 401; Com. v. Sawtelle, Compare P. v. Blackman, 127 Cal. 141 Mass. 140, 5 N. B. 312, 8 Cr. L. .248, 59 Pac. 573. Mag. 355; Jackson v. S., 76 Ga. 551; "P. v. Leonard, 106 Cal. 302, 39 Gallardo v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. Pac. 617; S. v. Reinhart, 26 Or. 464, 974; BdelhofE v. S., 5 Wyom. 19, 36 S8 Pac. 822; P. v. Flock, 100 Mich. Pac. 627, 9 Am. C. R. 263; P. v. 612, 59 N. W. 237. See S. v. Adams, Neyce, 86 Cal. 393, 24 Pac. 1091; 108 Mo. 208, 18 S. W. 1000; Com. Com. v. Shepard, 1 Allen (Mass.) V. Pratt, 137 Mass. 98. 575; Ter. v. Meyer (Ariz.), 24 Pae. •P. V. Westlake, 124 Cal. 452, 57 183; S. v. Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 68 I'ac. 465. N. W. 11; Reg. v. Proud, 9 Cox C. C. 'Bridges v. S., 110 Ga. 246, 34 S. 22; P. v. Hawkins, 106 Mich. 479, E. 1037. 64 N. W. 736; Underhill Cr. Bv., 'Com. V. Tuckerman, 10 Gray § 283. •§ 565 EMBEZZLEMENT. 153 dictment charges him with embezzling, and what he did with it, is competent as tending to show the mode of dealings between the par- ties, and as bearing on intent." § 565. Distinct embezzlements. — ^An agent collected for his em- ployer the sum of eight dollars and seventy-one cents each month for a period of eighteen months, being the rent for a house owned by his employer, and he at all times reported the house unoccupied. It was held that the collection each month constituted a single offense, and that they were not dependent upon each other and did not constitute a single fact of one endeavor. In other words, the several monthly collections did not constitute a series of acts making one offense.^" § 566. Series of acts, one transaction. — Embezzlement often con- sists (fi many acts done in a series of years and the fact at last dis- ■ closed that the employer's money and funds are embezzled is the crime. In such case the prosecution should not be required to elect on which of the many acts it would claim a conviction, such acts be- ing a series of acts constituting the corpus delicti. It might be other- wise where distinct sums of money are or may be delivered to the ac- cused on different occasions wide apart, where such distinct acts might very readily be susceptible of direct proof .^^ •Dancy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. "W. (Minn., 1900), 81 N. W. 750, 48 L. R. 886. Compare Hobbs v. P., 183 111. A. 92. Not sufficient: S. v. Baldwin, 336, 55 N. E. 692. The evidence in 70 Iowa 180, 30 N. W. 476; P. v. the following cases was held suffl- Van Sciever (Cal.), 42 Pac. 451; Dix clent to sustain convictions: P. v. v. S., 89 Wis. 250, 61 N. W. 760 Carter, 122 Mich. 668, 81 N. W. 924 (venue); Rauguth v. P., 186 111. 93, (ownership); S. v. Foley, 81 Iowa 57 N. E. 832; Almond v. S., 110 Ga. 36, 46 N. W. 746; S. v. Rue, 72 Minn. 883, 36 S. E. 215. 296, 75 N. W. 235; Price v. S. (Tex. "Edelhoff v. S., 5 Wyom. 19, 36 Cr.), 40 S. W. 596; Robson v. S., 83 Pac. 627, 9 Am. C. R. 264. Compare S. v. Jones, 70 N. C. 75; P. v. 279, 52 Pac. 656; Watson v. P., 87 Court of Oyer & Terminer, 83 N. Y. N. Y. 564, 41 Am. R. 397; Ladd v. S., 436, 449; McKee v. S., Ill Ind. 378, 17 Fla. 219; S. v. Dowe, 27 Iowa 275, 381, 12 N. E. 510; P. v. Henssler, 48 1 Am. R. 271; S. v. Dorr, 33 Me. 498; Mich. 49, 11 N. W. 804. Meek v. S., 117 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155; °^ S. v. Crane, 54 Kan. 251, 38 Pac. S. V. Connor, 110 Ind. 471, 11 N. E. 270; P. v. Stetson, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 454; S. v. Dennis, 80 Mo. 956; S. v. 151; Reg. v. Mills, 7 Cox C. C. 263. Moore, 111 N. C. 672, 16 S. E. 384; <"= P. v. Gibbs, 98 Cal. 661, 33 Pac. Morgan v. S., 42 Ark. 138, 48 Am. 630. K. 55; S. v. Metsch, 37 Kan. 222, 15 »» S. v. Willard, 109 Mo. 242, 19 Pac. 251; S. v. Bloodsworth, 25 Or. S. W. 189; S. v. Moore, 111 N. C. «3, 34 Pac. 1023; Fay v. Com., 28 672, 16 S. E. 384. See Com. v. -Gratt. (Va.) 912, 3 Am. C. R. 85; Devlin, 141 Mass. 423, 6 N. E. 64; Haines v. Ter., 3 Wyo. 168, 13 Pac. P. v. Haynes, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 8; Thorpe v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 346, 50 S. 546, 28 Am. D. 530. "W. 383; Rainey v. S., 94 Ga. 599, 19 " S. v. Asher, 50 Ark. 427, 8 S. W. S. E. 892; Reg. v. Hensler, 11 Cox 177. See McGee v. S., 97 Ga. 199, 22 C. C. 570; Epperson v. S., 42 Tex. S. E. 589. SO. Contra, P. v. Gardner, 144 N. § 016 f^ALSB PRETENSE. 169 § 616. Opinion of value, loca,tion. — Statements by the accused, on a charge of false pretense, as to the value of the lots in question, or that they are "nicely located," are mere naatters of opinion and not facts upon which to base a charge of false pretense, and especially i$ this true if the prpsecutor was not duped thereby."" § 617. Opinion — ^Witch doctor. — Eepresentations by the accused that he was a witch doctor and could kill and destroy witches; that the person to whom such representations were made was the victim of witches and that unless he employed the accused to exorcise them they would kill him and his family, constitute no offense, being mere expressions of opinion, and not calculated to deceive a man of com- mon understanding.** § 618. Collecting claim by false statements. — Within the true meaning of the statute a man can not he held guilty of procuring money by false pretenses, with intent to defraud, who has merely col- lected a debt due him, though in making the collection he has used false pretenses: as, where the prosecutor owed the prisoner's master a sum of money which he would not pay, the prisoner, to secure his master the means of paying himself, went to the prosecutor's wife ^nd falsely pretended that his master had bought of her husband two sacks of malt and had sent him to fetch them away, and she thereupon gave them to him and he carried them to his master. Held, not false pretense.*^ : . » P. V. Jacobs, 35 Mich. 36, 2 Am. •" S. v. Burnett, 119 Ind. 392, 21 C. R. 104; Bishop v. Small, 63 Me. N. B. 972, 8 Am. C. R. 259. See 12; ;Mooney v. Miller, 102 Mass. 217; Jules v. S., 85 Md. 305, 36 Atl. 1027. S. V. Daniel, 114 N. C. 823, 19 S. E. But contra, Bowen v. S., 9 Baxt. 100; S. V. Wehh, 26 Iowa 262; S. v. (Tenn.) 45, 40 Am. R. 71; Reg. v. Paul, 69 Me. 215; Underhill Cr. Ev., Lawrence, 36 L. T. N. S. 404; Reg. § 439; Woodbury v. S., 69 Ala. 242, v. Giles, 10 Cox C. C. 44, 34 L. J. M. 44 Am. R. 515; S. v. Bradley, 68 Mo. C. 50. 142; S. v. Petty, 119 Mo. 425, 24 S. "' S. v. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 W. 1016; S. V. King, 67 N. H. 219,, Am. C. R. 114, 116; Rex v. Williams, 34 Atl. 461. See Com. v. Stevenson, 7 Car. & P. 354, 32 Bng. C. L. R. 540; - 127 Mass. 448; P. v. Gibbs, 98 Cal. Com. v. Henry, 22 Pa. St. 256; P. 661, 33 Pac. 630; Com. v. Wood, 142 v. Thomas, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 169; Jami- Mass. 461, 8 N. B. 432; Rothschild son v. S., 37 Ark. 445, 40 Am. R. V. S., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 294. Compare 103; Matter of Cameron, 44 Kan. P. V. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576, 47 Nj E. ?4, 24 Pac. 90; Com. v. McDuffy, 126 883; S. v. Sherrill, 95 N. C. 663; S. Mass. 467. Contra, P. v. Smith, 5 V. Burke, 108 N. C. 750, 12 S. B. park. Cr. (N. Y.) 490. 1000; Jackson v. P., 126 111. 139, 18 N. E. 286. 170 hughes' criminal law. § 619 § 619. Title not passing. — The accused was charged with obtaining the property of the prosecutor by false pretense by means of a writ- ten agreement which provided, among other things, that the "title, ownership and possession" should not pass from the seller to the pur- chaser until the latter should pay a note in full, which he had executed under the arrangements. Held, not a basis for false pretense."' § 620. Keeping false books. — The employes of a company kept false books and made false reports for the purpose of concealing em- bezzlements of the money of the company. Held, not sufficient for a charge of false pretense, it not appearing that any funds of the company came to their hands by reason of any false representations made by them. The false pretenses charged were held to be too remote to become the basis of a criminal prosecution."' § 621. Title to lot in prospect. — The accused, expecting to buy a certain lot, sold it to E., telling him he owned it. After thus selling the lot he made a written contract for the lot and paid a portion of the price, but he never paid the full price for the lot, nor did he ever acquire title to it. On a prosecution for obtaining the money of E. by false pretense, the false pretense being the statement that he owned the lot, it was held that if the accused, at the time he made the sale to E. and obtained his money, honestly intended and expected to make title to the lot to E., he did not have the intent to defraud required by the statute and should be acquitted.'" § 622. Pretense must be false. — The representation alleged to be a false pretense must actually be false. The fact that the accused believed it to be false when it was not is not sufficient on which to base a charge of false pretense.'^ § 623. Pretense as to renewing note. — The particular act alleged was the procuring of the prosecutor's indorsement of the defendant's promissory note, and the false pretense charged consisted in his repre- °»S. V. Anderson, 47 Iowa 142, 2 3 Am. C. R. 85; P. v. Griffith, 122 Am. C. R. 100. Cal. 212, 54 Pac. 725. ""Watson V. P., 27 111. App. 496. "Drought v. S., 101 Ga. 544, 28 See also Hurst v. S., 39 Tex. Or. S. E. 1013; P. v. Reynolds, 71 Mich. 196, 45 S. W. 573; Wagoner v. S., 90 343, 38 N. W. 923. See In re Snyder, Ind. 507; Reg. v. Lamer, 14 Cox C. 17 Kan. 555; Com. v. Drew, 153 C. 497. Mass. 588, 27 N. E. 593. "Fay V. Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 912, § 624 FALSE PRETENSE. 171 senting to the prosecutor that he would use the note so indorsed to take up and cancel another note of the same amount then about maturing and upon which the prosecutor was liable as an indorser. In other words, the note was given as a renewal of another note of like amount. The defendant procured the note to be discounted instead of taking up the other note, and appropriated the proceeds for other purposes. Held, not the subject of false pretense, and not larceny.^^ § 624. "Parting with" for unlawful purpose. — It has been held on a charge of false and fraudulent representations, that if the prosecutor parted with his money for an unlawful purpose, as, if he expected to receive counterfeit money, a conviction can not be had.''^ The fact that the party alleged to have been defrauded may have been careless, or in some manner in the wrong, is no defense to a charge of false pretense.''* § 625. Obtaining for charity. — Obtaining money by falsely repre- senting that it is to be used as a charitable gift is not criminal false pretense.''^ Article III. Indictment. § 626. Statutory words insuificient. — It is not sufficient to charge the crime of false pretense in the statutory language, if it fails to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.^" In charging the offense of obtaining .property by false pretenses, "with intent to defraud" the owner, the indictment will not be defective in not stating the intent or other element in the exact words of the stat- ute ; stating such intent in substance in other words is sufficient.'^ "Com. V. Moore, 99 Pa. St. 570, '"P. v. Clougli, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 4 Am. C. R. 230; P. v. Miller, 2 351, 31 Am. D. 303; 1 McClain Cr. Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 200. L., § 695. But see Musgrave v. S., '» P. V. Livingstone, 62 N. Y. Supp. 133 Ind. 297, 32 N. E. 885; P. v. 9, 14 N. Y. Cr. 422. Compare Lennox, 106 Mich. 625, 64 N. W. 488; Com. V. O'Brien, 172 Mass. 248, 52 Com. v. O'Brien, 172 Mass. 248, 52 N. E. 77. N. E. 77. "In re Cummins, 16 Colo. 451, 25 ™2 Roscoe Cr. Bv., 498, note; 1 Am. St. 291, 27 Pac. 887; P. v. McClain Cr. L., § 699, citing P. v. Martin, 102 Cal. 558, 36 Pac. 952; McKenna, 81 Cal. 158, 22 Pac. 488; P. v. Watson, 75 Mich. 582, 42 N. S. v. Fraker, 148 Mo. 143, 49 S. W. W. 1005; easily v. S., 32 Ind. 66; 1017. Com. V. O'Brien, 172 Mass. 248, 52 " S. v. Southall-, 77 Minn. 296, 79 N. E. 77. Contra, S. v. Crowley, 41 N. W. 1007; P. v. Skidmore, 123 CaL Wis. 271, 22 Am. R. 719; McCord 267, 55 Pac. 984 (owner), v. P., 46 N. Y. 470. ' 172 hughes' criminal law. § 627 § 627. "Relied on" as true. — It is not essential to allegp in the indictment, in express terms, that the owner, when parting with hi§ property, relied on the representations of the accused as being true. That he did so was a necessary implication from the allegation that he was induced by the representations to part with his property." For the failure to allege that the prosecutor relied upon such pretense as true, and upon the faith thereof, purchased from the accused the right to sell the "lifting jacks," and in consideration thereof executed the note set out in the indictment and alleged to have been procured by false pretenses, the indictment must be held bad.'* § 628. "Induced to part with," material. — That the prosecutor was induced by the false pretenses of the accused to part with his money is an essential allegation necessary to constitute the crime, and must be alleged in the indictment.*" An indictment charging false pre- tenses by fraudulently obtaining the signature of a person to a deed which on its face fails to show the connection between the alleged false pretense and the obtaining of such signature, is fatally defect- iye. It should show how such pretenses secured the signature to the deed.'^ § 629. False pretense and other causes. — "That the false pre- tenses, either with or without the co-operation of other causes, had a decisive influence upon the mind of the owner, so that, without their weight, he would have parted with his property," is the rule as to what must be alleged in the indictment.*" Stating the main inducing cause of the imposition in the indictment, which induced the owner to part with his property, is sufficient, although there may be other minor false pretenses which had their influence.** " P. V. Jacobs, 35 Mich. 36, 2 Am. But see S. v. Bloodsworth, 25 Or. €. R. 103; S. V. Penley, 27 Conn. 83, 34 Pac. 1023. 587; S. V. Benson, 110 Mo. 18, 19 "Simmons v. P., 187 111. 327, 58 S. W. 213; S. V. Bloodsworth, 25 Or. N. E. 906. See Moore v. P., 190 111. 83, 34 Pac. 1023; S. v. Palmer, 50 334. Kan. 318, 32 Pac. 29; Bonnell v. S., '"Cowen v. P., 14 111. 351; P. v. 64 Ind. 498; Schleisinger v. S., 11 Haynes, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 557; Fay Ohio St. 669. v. Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 912, 3 Am. "Jones V. S., 50 Ind. 473, 1 Am. C. R. 88; S. v. Thatcher, 35 N. J. L. C. R. 224. But see P. v. Jefferey, 445; Smith v. S., 55 Miss. 513, 3 31 N. Y. Supp. 267, 82 Hun 409. Am. C. R. 97; Com. v. Drew, 19 '"S. V. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 Am. Pick. (Mass.) 183. C. R. 105; Pendry v. S., 18 Fla. 191; »'Cowen v. P., 14 111. 351; Reg. v. Com. V. Strain, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 521. Lince, 12 Cox C. C. 451, 1 Green C. R. 133. § 630 FALSE PRETENSE. l73i § 630. Ownership, essential. — An indictment which fails to state by direct averment the ownership of the property alleged to have been bbtained by false pretense, or the property the defendant claimed to own, is fatally defective. That the ownership may be inferred from the indictment is not sufficient** In an indictment for obtaining goods from a firm by false pretenses, the names of the individual mem- ber? need not be set out in the indictment : the firm name is sufficient.*® § 631. Allegation of delivery. — ^An information charging, by proper averments, that the defendant "obtained the signature of" a person to a note by certain false pretenses alleged, sufficiently alleges that the note was delivered to the defendant.?* § 632. Pretenses must be negatived. — The indictment must, by direct and positive averments, negative the false pretenses alleged. Alleging "the timber and bark having been previously cut and hauled ofi" is not sufficient : it is argumentative. *'' An indictment with other proper averments, which charges that the defendant falsely represented that he was the owner of, and in possession of, certain land, should positively and directly negative each of these facts. Alleging that he was not the owner and in possession of the land, is not sufficient.** § 633. Allegation of scienter^'Znowingly," "designedly." — The indictment alleged that the defendant "did knowingly, designedly, falsely and feloniously pretend," etc., is a sufficient allegation of the scienter. And the indictment is good though the word "knowingly" be omitted.*? An indictment alleging by proper averments that the "Thompson v. P., 24 111. 66; 90 Mich. 356, 51 N. W. 515; Com. v. Moulie V. S., 37 Fla. 321, 20 So. 554; Sanders, 98 Ky. 12, 32 S. "W. 129; Jenkins v. S., 97 Ala. 66, 12 So. 110; Campbell v. S., 154 Ind. 309, 56 N. B. Mays V. S., 28 Tex. App. 484, 13 S. 665. W. 787; Jones v. S., 22 Fla. 532; S. «»P. v. Griffith, 122 Cal. 212, 54 V. Miller, 153 Ind. 229, 54 N. E. 808. Pac. 725. See S. V. Ridge, 125 N. C. 658, 34 «» S. v. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 Am. S. E. 440. C. R. 106; Com. v. Hulbert, 12 Mete. ""S. v. Williams, 103 Ind. 235, 2 (Mass.) 446; S. v. Blauvelt, 38 N. J. N. E. 585, 6 Am. C. R. 256. See L. 306; Johnson v. S., 75 Ind. 556; P. Stoughton V. S., 2 Ohio St. 562; Com. v. Fitzgerald, 92 Mich. 328, 52 N. W. v. Call, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 515. 726; S. v. Bradley, 68 Mo. 142; S: "P. V. Kinney, 110 Mich. 97, 67 v. Moore, 111 N. C. 672, 16 S. E. N. W. 1089. 384; S. v. Nine, 105 Iowa 131, 74 "S. V. Paul, 69 Me. 215; S. v. N. W. 945; Sharp v. S., 53 N. J. L. Pickett, 78 N. C. 458; S. v. Smith, 511, 21 Atl. 1026. Contra, Maranda 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 489; S. v. Palmer, v. S., 44 Tex. 442, 1 Am. C. R. 225. 50 Kan. 318, 32 Pac. 29; P. v. Behee, 174 HUGHKS' CRIMINAL LAW. § 634 defendant "did designedly, falsely represent and pretend" certain facts to be true, sufficiently avers that he knew the facts to be false.'" Under a statute providing that "whoever designedly and by any false pretense" obtains the property of another, an indictment will be de- fective in omitting the word designedly or its equivalent in charging the offense.'^ § 634. Duplicity, when not. — An indictment charging with proper averments that the defendant fraudulently obtained the property of another by color of a false token or writing and by false represen- tations, in the usual form, is not bad for duplicity.'^ And under a statute making it a criminal offense to present false or fraudulent claims, an indictment charging the accused with presenting false and fraudulent claims against the county, is not bad for duplicity.*' § 635. Description of property, or money. — An indictment for false pretenses which describes the goods alleged to have been obtained as "a large amount of dry and fancy goods" is not sufficient, being too indefinite.®* Where an indictment charges the defendant with ob- taining property by falsely representing that he was the owner of certain horses, free from incumbrances, and states generally that the horses were in fact incumbered by mortgage, without describing the horses or mortgage, it is fatally defective. It fails to state the "nature of the crime and cause of accusation."'^ The money alleged to have been obtained by false piretense was described in the indictment as "five thousand dollars in lawful money." Held, sufficient.'" The first averment in the indictment is very vague and indefinite. It does not sufficiently describe the real estate alleged to have been owned and sold by the accused, nor is the name of the purchaser given. If the name of the purchaser of the lot was known to the grand jury it should have been stated as well as the description of the lot.°^ ""P. V. Lennox, 106 Mich. 625, 64 20 Wis. 217; Jamison v. S., 37 Ark. N. W. 488. 445; Johnson v. S., 75 Ind. 553. " S. V. "Withee, 87 Me. 462, 32 Atl. " S. v. Stowe, 132 Mo. 199, 33 S. 1013. W. 799. See P. v. Winner, 30 N. Y. "^Pinney v. S. (Ind., 1901), 59 N. Supp. 54, 80 Hun 130; S. v. Cameron, E. 383. 117 Mo. 371, 22 S. W. 1024; S. v. ""Wilson V. S. (Ind., 1901), 69 N. Kain, 118 Mo. 5. 23 S. W. 763. E. 380; Ferris v. S. (Ind., 1901), 59 "" S. v. Knowlton, 11 Wash. 512, N. B. 475. 39 Pac. 966. " S. V. Appleby, 63 N. J. L. 526, " Keller v. S., 51 Ind. Ill, 1 Am. 42 Atl. 847. The property should C. R. 214. The indictment is set be described the same as in larceny: out in full in the above case. S. V. Reese, 83 N. C. 637; S. v. Kube, § 636 FALSE PRETENSE. 175 § 636. Instrument should be described. — An instrument used as the basis of a charge of false pretenses should be set out or so de- scribed that the court can, by inspection, determine whether it is such an obligation that it might be the basis of a criminal charge.** § 637. Statute as to description — ^Unconstitutional. — ^A statute making it unnecessary to allege in the indictment the name of the person whose property is obtained or the means used to obtain it, or making it unnecessary to describe the property, is unconstitutional." § 638. Deceiving woman — Sufficient. — An indictment charged that the defendant falsely represented to a certain woman, naming her, that he intended to marry her, provide her a home and deposit a check in her name for one thousand dollars ; that by means of these false representations he induced her to sign and give him a check, asking her to advance him one hundred and twenty-five dollars, but the check turned out to be for seven hundred and twenty-five instead of one hundred and twenty-five, she intending to give him only the latter sum. The indictment set out with sufficient certainty the operative cause which induced the woman to sign the check, and was sufficient under the statute of Indiana.^"" ^Langford v. S., 45 Ala. 26; Har- 427, 43 Pac. 167; S. v. Hulder, 78 din V. S., 25 Tex. App. 74, 7 S. W. Minn. 524, 81 N. W. 532; Pinney v. 534. See Moore v. P., 190 111. 334. S. (Ind., 1901), 59 N. B. 383 (form); " S. v. Benson, 110 Mo. 18, 19 S. "W. Nasets v. S. (Tex. Or.), 32 S. W. 213; S. v. Reynolds, 106 Mo. 146, 17 698; S. v. Boklen, 14 Wash. 403, 44 S. W. 322; S. v. Kain, 118 Mo. 5, 23 Pac. 889; Reg. v. Silverlock, L. R. S. W. 763. (1894) 2 Q. B. D. 766; S. v. Knowl- '"S. V. Styner, 154 Ind. 131, 56 N. ton, 11 Wash. 512, 39 Pac. 966 (ob- E. 98. Contra, P. v. Weir, 120 Cal. tained); S. v. Mangum, 116 N.C.998, 279, 52 Pac. 656. Indictment held 21 S. E. 189; P. v. Millan, 106 Cal. sulEcient in the following cases: 320, 39 Pac. 605; S. v. Kealy, 89 Barton v. P., 135 111. 405, 25 N. E. Iowa 98, 56 N. W. 284; Musgrave v. 776; Com. v. O'Brien, 172 Mass. 248, S., 133 Ind. 297, 32 N. E. 885; Com. 52 N. E. 77; P. v. Skidmore, 123 Cal. v. Blanchette, 157 Mass. 486, 32 N. 267, 55 Pac. 984 (ownership); Gsrn- E. 658; S. v. Morgan, 112 Mo. 202, er V. S., 100 Ga. 257, 28 S. E. 24; S. 20 S. W. 456; P. v. Carolan, 71 Cal. v. Nine, 105 Iowa 131, 74 N. W. 945; 195, 12 Pac. 52; P. v. Hamberg, 84 Com. V. Sessions, 169 Mass. 329, 47 Cal. 468, 24 Pac. 298; S. v. Ashe, N. B. 1034; Com. v. Mulrey, 170 44 Kan. 84, 24 Pac. 72; S. v. Cad- Mass. 103, 49 N. E. 91; S. v. Barr(N. well, 79 Iowa 473, 44 N. W. 711; J. L.), 40 Atl. 772; Meek v. S., 117 P. v. Moran, 59 N. Y. Supp. 312, 43 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155; P. v. Summers, App. Div. 155; S. v. Nine, 105 Iowa 115 Mich. 537, 73 N. W. 818; Oxx 131, 74 N. W. 945; S. v. Woodward, v. S., 59 N. J. L. 99, 35 Atl. 646; 156 Mo. 143, 56 S. W. 880. Indict- Hafner v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 423, 36 ment not sufficient: P. v. Griffith, 122 S. W. 549; S. v. King, 67 N. H. 219, Cal. 212, 54 Pac. 725; S. v. Fraker, 148 34 Atl. 461; S. v. Hanscom, 28 Or. Mo. 143, 49 S. W. 1017; ClufE v. Ter. 176 hughes' criminal law. $ 639 Article IV. Evidence. §639. Burden on prosecution.— Before a convidtion can be sus- tained the prosecution must prove that the pretenses alleged to be false were false in fact. In other words, the burden is on the prosectf- tion to prove the falsity of such representations.^ But the falsity of the representations need not be shown by direct proof.^ § 640. Admissions alone — ^Insufficient. — ^While admissions or con- fessions of the defendant are competent as tending to show the f alsit^r of the representations, yet they alone are not sufficient to sustain a conviction.' § 641. Main inducing cause, sufficient. — It is sufficient to consti- tute false pretense that the main inducing cause be established, al- though there may have been other minor false pretenses made which had their influence, and possibly, without which the main inducing cause might not have been sufficient to produce the result.* § 642. Evidence confined to facts alleged. — Material matters of fact not alleged in the indictment and negatived by proper averments, (Ariz.) 52 Pac. 350; Funk v. S., Tex. 503; S. v. Wilbourne, 87 N. C. 149 Ind. 338, 49 N. B. 266; Hurst 529; Bowler v. S., 41 Miss. 576; v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 196, 45 S. W. 573; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 439. S. V. Barbee, 136 Mo. 440, 37 S. W. ' Com. v. Hersbell, Thach. Cr. Cas. 1119; Roper v. S., 58 N. J. L. 420, 33 (Mass.) 70; Smith v. S., 55 Miss. Atl. 969; Martin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 521; P. v. Sully, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 5 S. W. 859; Cummings v. S., 36 Tex. 169. Cr. 152, 36 S. W. 266; S. v. Withee, ' S. v. Long, 103 Ind. 481, 3 N. E. 87 Me. 462, 32 Atl. 1013 (time); 169; S. v. Penny, 70 Iowa 190, 30 Owens V. S., 83 Wis. 496, 53 N. "W. N. W. 561. 736; Denley v. S. (Miss.), 12 So. ■'Cowen v. P., 14 111. 350; Fay v. 698; Tennyson v. S., 97 Ala. 78, 12 Com., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 912; Donohoe So. 391; Copeland v. S., 97 Ala. 30, v. S., 59 Ark. 375, 27 S. W. 226; S. 12 So. 181; S. V. Miller, 153 Ind. v. Gordon, 56 Kan. 67, 42 Pac. 346; 229, 54 N. E. 808; S. v. Trisler, 49 S. v. Fooks, 65 Iowa 196, 452, 21 N. Ohio St. 583, 31 N. E. 881 (negativ- W-. 561, 773; Smith v. S., 55 Miss. ing); Cain v. S., 58 Ark. 43, 22 S. 522; Trogdon v. Com., 31 Gratt. W. 954; P. V. Behee, 90 Mich. 356, (Va.) 884; S. v. Dunlap, 24 Me. 77; 51 N. W. 515; Jacobs v. S., 31 Neb. S. v. Thatcher, 35 N. J. L. 445; Wax 33, 47 N. W. 422; Com. v. Dunleay, v. S., 43 Neb. 22, 61 N. W. 117; Com. 153 Mass. 330, 26 N. E. 870; Jones v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 446; S. v. V. S., 22 Fla. 532; S. v. Clay, 100 Connor, 110 Ind. 471, 11 N. B. 454; Mo. 571, 13 S. W. 827; S. v. Mc- P. v. Miller, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 199; Chesney, 90 Mo. 120, 1 S. W. 841. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 442. Contra, ^ Babcock v. P., 15 Hun (N. Y.) P. v. Dalton, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. 347; Morris v. P., 4 Colo. App. 136, Y.) 180; Bryant v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 35 Pac. 188; S. v. Hurley, 58 Kan. 790, 47 S. W. 578. 668, 50 Pac. 887; Brown v. S., 29 § 643 FALSE PRETENSE. 177 can not be shown in evidence by the prosecution, as, where the indict- ment charges the defendant with obtaining money by false pretenses the evidence must be confined to the specific sum alleged in the in- dictment.° § 643. Induced to part with, inferred. — It is not indispensable that the prosecutor should testify that by reason of the false representations alleged he was induced to part with his property. The false repre- sentations having once been clearly proven and the intent of the ac- cused to cheat and defraud made apparent, the jury may infer that credit was given to the false representations so made." §644. Intent — ^Knowledge, essential. — That the defendant knew that the representations made by him were false and made with the design or intention of obtaining the property of the prosecutor, is an essential element of false pretense and must be proven.' The intent is a question, not of law but of fact, to be determined by the jury. But the intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the partic- ular case.^ § 645. "Relied upon," proof of. — The prosecuting witness may tes- tify directly that he relied upon the false representations made to him = Barber v. P., 17 Hun (N. Y.) 366; Clark, 46 Kan. 65, 26 Pac. 481; P. v. Sharp V. S., 53 N. J. L. 511, 21 Atl. Wakely, 62 Mich. 303, 28 N. W. 1026; S. V. Long, 103 Ind. 481, 3 N. 871; P. v. Oscar, 105 Mich. 704, 6S E. 169; Prehm v. S., 22 Neb. 673, 36 N. W. 971; P. v. Fish, 4 Park. Cr. N. W. 295; Peckham v. S. (Tex. Cr.), (N. Y.) 212; Watson v. P., 87 N. Y. 28 S. W. 532; S. v. Green, 7 Wis. 564, 41 Am. R. 397; Bower v. S., 41 686; Matter of Eberle, 44 Kan. 472, Miss. 578; Com. v. Dean, 110 Mass. 24 Pac. 958. 65; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 502; ' Com. V. Daniels, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. Rosales v. S., 22 Tex. App. 673, 3 (Pa.) 335; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. S. W. 344; S. v. Oakley, 103 N. C. 501; S. V. Thatcher, 35 N. J. L. 449; 408, 9 S. B. 575; Sharp v. S., 53 N. Therasson v. P., 82 N. Y. 239; Reg. J. L. 511, 21 Atl. 1026; Reg. v. James, v. Burton, 16 Cox C. C. 62; P. v. 12 Cox C. C. 127; Rex v. Wakeling, Hong Quin Moon, 92 Cal. 42, 27 Pac. R. & R. 504; P. v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 1096. 340, 349. 'Jackson v. P., 126 111. 139, 18 "Jackson v. P., 126 111. 139, 18 N. N. E. 286; P. v. Behee, 90 Mich. 356, E. 286; Com. v. Walker, 108 Mass. 51 N. W. 515; Johnson v. S., 75 Ind. 312; Trogdon v. Com., 31 Gratt. 556; S. V. Haines, 23 S. C. 170; S. v. (Va.) 862; Woodruff v. S., 61 Ark. Fields, 118 Ind. 491, 21 N. E. 252; 179, 32 S. W. 102; S. v. Neimeier, Dorsey v. S., Ill Ala. 40, 20 So. 66 Iowa 636, 24 N. W. 247; Dorsey 629; S. V. Jackson, 112 Mo. 585, 20 v. S., 110 Ala. 38, 20 So. 450; S. v. S. W. 674; S. v. Garris, 98 N. C. 733, Norton, 76 Mo. 180; Underbill Cr.. 4 S. E. 633; Com. v. Devlin, 141 Ev., § 437. Mass. 423, 430, 6 N. E. 64; S. v. hughes' c. l. — 12 178 hughes' criminal law. § 646 by the defendant as being true, and that by reason thereof he parted with his property." § 646. Insolvency of firm. — Where the insolvency of a business firm is a material fact in issue it is not competent to prove such fact by showing the insolvency of the members; of the firm as to their private affairs.^" § 647. Other similar pretenses. — ^Evidence that the accused made similar pretenses to other persons in making sales or purchases a short time previous to the sale in question is admissible to show the intent as to the transaction on which indicted. ^^ Where several transactions are so connected in time and circumstance as to constitute parts of a general system or scheme of fraud, all such transactions may be proven to shov the fraudulent intent in the transaction on which indicted." A paper taken from the defendant, addressed, "To all whom, it may concern," in his own handwriting, and containing the same false state- ments alleged in the indictment, is competent, though he did not use the paper in obtaining the goods in the particular case on trial.^' I 648. Proving non-existence of place. — Where it is material on the trial of a charge of false pretense to prove the non-existence of a certain branch office of a business firm, a witness may testify that he 'Cam. V. Drew, 153 Mass. 588, 27 Summers, 115 Mich. 537, 73 N. W. N. E, 593; P. v. Hong Quin Moon, 818; P. v. Wasservogle, 77 Cal. 173, 92 Cal. 42, 27 Pac. 1096; P. v. Sully, 19 Pac. 270; P. v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 164; Trodgon v. 576, 47 N. E. 883; Weyman v. P., Com., 31 Gratt. (Va.) 884; In re 4 Hun (N. Y.) 516, 62 N. Y. 623; S. Snyder, 17 Kan. 542, 553. v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 44 S. W. 267; "Com. V. Davidson, 1 Cush. Martin v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 125, 35 S. =ajolinBton V. Com., 85 Pa. St. "Miller v. S., 77 Ala. 44; 3 Greenl. 64, 3 Am. C. R. 31; Rolland v. Com., Bv., § 76; Walker v. S., 63 Ala. 49, 82 Pa. St. 306; Dutcher v. S., 18 35 Am. R. 1. Ohio 317. " Pressley v. S.. Ill Ala. 34, 20 So. "3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 77; 647. S. V. Mordecai, 68 N. C. 207. See " S. v. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531, 5 Am. § 700 BURGLARY. 195 § 700. Dwelling, owner absent. — A building which is in fact a dwelling-house does not lose its character as such by a mere temporary absence of its inhabitants who have left with intent to return, but it does not become a dwelling-house, though used for taking meals and other purposes, unless the person occupying it or some one of his family or servants usually sleep in it at night.^° The fact that the owner of a building visited it once or twice a year and slept in it about a week, does not make it a dwelling-house, it being unoccupied during the rest of the year.^° § 701. Boat not dwelling. — A canal boat which has become ground- ed and frozen fast is not a dwelling-house within the statutory defini- tion, though used as a dwelling-house by the captain of the boat.^^ § 702. Lodgers, inmates only. — "A chamber in a college or an inn of court, where each inhabitant hath a distinct property, is to all other purposes, as well as this, the mansion-house of the owner. So also is a room or lodging in a private house the mansion for the time being of the owner : if the owner doth not himself dwell in the house, or if he and the lodger enter by difEerent outward doors. But if the owner himself lies in the house and hath but one outward door at which he and his lodgers enter, such lodgers seem only to be inmates and all their apartments to be parcel of the one dwelling-house of the 'owner."^^ § 703. When storehouse a dwelling. — Where a building is partly used as a storehouse and other parts as a dwelling by the owner or his family, it is his dwelling-house; otherwise if a person sleeps there merely to protect the premises.^^ C. R. 100; 4 Bl. Com. 225; 1 Hale P. Warren, 33 Me. 30; Bish. Stat. C. 553; 2 Russell Crimes (9th ed.), Crimes, § 279; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 79; 15; Com. v. Barney, 10 Cush. 478; S. v. Weber, 156 Mo. 257, 56 S. W. P. v. Aplin, 86 Mich. 393, 49 N. W. 893. 148; S. V. Johnson, 45 S. C. 483, 23 ^ Scott v. S., 62 Miss. 781. See S. S. E. 619. See Wait v. S., 99 Ala. v. Jenkins, 50 N. C. (5 Jones) 430. 164, 13 So. 584; S. v. Whit, 49 N. ^ S. v. Green, 6 N. J. L. J. 123. See C. (4 Jones) 349; Edwards v. Der- Williamson v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 60, 44 rickson, 28 N. J. L. 39; S. v. Jake, 2 S. W. 1107. Winst. (N. C.) 80; Palmer v. S., 47 =^4 Bl. Com. 225. Tenn. 82. '^ S. v. Potts, 75 N. C. 129, 1 Am. "Scott V. S., 62 Miss. 781, 5 Am. C. R. 365; P. v. Dupree, 98 Mich. 26, C. R. 98; Schwahacher v. P., 165 111. 56 N. W. 1046; Ashton v. S., 68 Ga. 625, 46 N. E. 809; S. v. Williams, 40 25; S. v. Williams, 90 N. C. 724, 47 W. Va. 268, 21 S. B. 721; Buchanan Am. R. 541; 1 McClain Cr. L., V. S., 24 Tex. App. 195, 5 S. W. 847; § 494. Harrison v. S., 74 (Sa. 801; S. v. 196 hughes' criminal law. ^ 704 § 704. "Any other building" includes. — The words "any other fcuilding" in which the crime of larceny may be committed is of the came kind with the particular class mentioned, and will include "chicken-houses," though the term chicken-house is not specifically mentioned in the statute.^* The term "other building" of the statute will include a court house, though the property so occupied belongs to a private person.''^ The statutory words "other erection or inclosure," relating to burglary, will not include a vault or inclosure for the interment of the dead, built entirely above the ground on a stone foundation.^" § 705. Warehouse, storehouse — Store. — "Warehouse" will include a covered structure used for storing cotton bales, one side and end of which are planked up and the other end and side left open ; the struc- ture being inclosed by a plank fence nine feet high with gates kept locked.^'' And "warehouse or storehouse" includes a livery stable in which harness, buggies and farming implements are kept.''' And a structure erected within which to store husked corn comes withtti the meaning of "storehouse" or "warehouse."^* And a "meat-house" is a "storehouse."^" A "storeroom" is not a "storehouse," nor is a 'store" a "shop," within the meaning of the law.^^ A "store," within the meaning of the statute, is a place in which merchandise is kept for sale. Any building where goods are kept for sale is a store. '^ A statute punishing the offense of breaking into a "storehouse, ware^ house or other outhouse" will be construed, on conviction, to include a retail liquor and cigar store or saloon.^* I 706. Attempt — ^Agreement to commit. — Any act done with the design of committing burglary without accomplishing it, is an attempt '^ Gillock v. P., 171 111. 308, 312, Ratekin v. S., 26 Ohio St. 420. But 49 N. E. 712. See Price v. Com., see S. v. Wilson, 47 N. H. 181; S. v. 15 Ky. L. 837, 25 S. W. 1062, citing Dolson, 22 Wash. 259, 60 Pac. 653. contra, S. v. Schuchmann, 133 Mo. '^ Webb v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 220, 35 111, 33 S. W. 35, 34 S. W. 842. S. W. 1038. »= S. V. Rogers, 54 Kan. 683, 39 Pac. ^ Metz v. S., 46 Neb. 547, 65 N. W. 219. See P. v. Young, 65 Cal. 225, 190. See S. v. Gibson, 97 Iowa 416, 3 Pac. 813; S. v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 66 N. W. 742. 315, 19 S. W. 91; Kincaid v. P., 139 ™ Benton v. Com., 91 Va. 782, 21 111. 217, 28 N. E. 1060; P. v. Mc- S. E. 495. Closkey, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 57; S. ''Hagar v. S., 35 Ohio St. 268; S. v. Garrison, 52 Kan. 180, 34 Pac. v. Canney, 19 N. H. 135. 751. ^ Com. V. Whalen, 131 Mass. 419; '» P. V. Richards, 108 N. Y. 141, S. v. Canney, 19 N. H. 135. 15 N. E. 371; Wood v. S., 18 Fla. »= S. v. Curran (Md.), 4 Cr. L.Mag. 967 (crib). 226. See S. v. Comstock, 20 Kan. "Hagan v. S., 52 Ala. 373. See 650. ^ 707 BURGLARY. 197 to commit the crime; such as taking the impression of a key which locks the door of a storehouse with the intention of making a false key.'* The mere agreement with another to commit a burglary and meeting him at an appointed time and place with a weapon, such as a revolver, and the purchase of some chloroform to be used in commit- ivag the offense, is not sufficient to constitute an attempt.^' § 707. Attempt to steal by burglary. — ^Breaking and entering a building with intent to steal money from a safe therein, is burglary, although the safe contained no money and was not used for keeping money in at the time.^" § 708. "Felony" includes petit larceny.^ — rThe breaking and enter- ing of a building with intent to commit "murder, rape, robbery, lar- _ ceny or other felony" includes petit as well as grand larceny.^^ § 709. Servant stealing. — If a servant or employe having charge of a house enters one of its rooms which he is not permitted to enter, and steals goods therein, he is guilty of burglary.'* And so also a domestic servant having charge of a house, conspiring with others who are not servants, to enter the rooms of the house and steal, may be guilty of burglary, though such act committed by the servant alone would not be burglary." Article II. Matters op Defense. § 710. Intent essential. — On a charge of burglary the accused may show that he entered the house for a different purpose than that ■charged in the indictment; as, for example, to meet a lewd woman with whom he had had improper relations, and for no other pur- pose.*" "Griffin v. S., 26 Ga. 493; S. v. But see ShaefEer v. S., 61 Ark. 241, ColTin, 90 N. C. 717; S. v. Jordan, 32 S. "W. 679; Wood v. S., IS Fla. 75 N. C. 27. See Donaldson v. S., 967. 10 Ohio C. C. 613. '»Hlld v. S., 67 Ala. 39; Lowder ==P. V. Youngs, 122 Mich. 292, 81 v. S., 63 Ala. 143, 35 Am. R. 9. N. W. 114, 47 L. R. A. 108. See Van Walker v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. ="= S. V. Beal, 37 Ohio St. 108, 41 359, 26 S. W. 507. Am. R. 490. See Clark v. S., 86 =» Neiderluck v. S., 23 Tex. App. Tenn. 511, 8 S. W. 145; Harvick v. 38, 3 S. W. 573. S., 49 Ark. 514, 6 S. W. 19. Contra, " Robinson v. S., 53 Md. 151, 36 Lee V. S., 56 Ga. 477. Am. R. 399; S. v. Meche, 42 La. 273, "S. V. Keyser, 56 Vt. 622; Pooler 7 So. 573; S. v. Worthen (Iowa), 82 V. S., 97 Wis. 627, 73 N. W. 336; P. N. W. 910. T. Stapleton, 2 Idaho 49, 3 Pac. 6. 198 hughes' criminal law. § 711 § 711. Owner consents to burglary. — Where the owner of a build- ing arranges with a detective and consents to have his building en- tered and a larceny committed, it is not a erime.*^ But where the owner or proprietor is informed of an intended burglary, and he takes no steps to prevent it, but puts a force in the building to capture the burglars, this does not amount to giving his consent to having a bur- glary committed, and his act does not afEeet the defendant's guilt.** Article III. Indictment. § 712. "Burglariously," "feloniously," essential. — The word "bur- glariously" is not essential to be alleged in the indictment, for burg- lary under the statute of Illinois — but it is undoubtedly true that this word was and is indispensable to a count in burglary at common law.*' "Feloniously" is an essential word in an indictment for burg- lary under a statute where the entry into the building is for the pur- pose and with the intent to commit a felony.** § 713. Tenant is owner — ^Room — 'Renter — ^Bailee. — ^In burglary the ownership of the premises may be laid in the occupant whose possession is rightful as against the burglar. The rooms rented to a person constitute his dwelling-house in the sense of the law.*' A tenant occupying premises is the owner thereof within the meaning of the law relating to burglary.*' One who rents a room in a hotel "Love V. P., 160 lU. 508, 43 N. E. v. Jordan, 39 La. 340, 1 So. 655; 710; Lyons v. P., 68 lU. 280; Roberts Reed v. S., 14 Tex. App. 662. But V. Ter., 8 Okla. 326, 57 Pac. 840; see S. v. McClung, 35 W. Va. 280, 13 P. V. McCord, 76 Mich. 200, 8 Am. S. E. 654; Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr., C. R. 117, 42 N. W. 1106; Speiden 1900), 55 S. W. 491; S. v. Lewis, 13 V. S., 3 Tex. App. 156; Allen v. S., S. Dak. 166, 82 N. W. 406. 40 Ala. 334, 91 Am. R. 476; Turner « Smith v. S., 93 Ind. 67, 5 Cr. L. V. S., 24 Tex. App. 12, 5 S. W. 511; Mag. 564; Scudder v. S., 62 Ind. 13; P. v. Collins, 53 Cal. 185. But see 1 McClain Cr. L., § 510. S. V. Rowe, 98 N. C. 629, 4 H. B. "Smith v. P., 115 111. 20, 3 N. B. 506. See also S. v. AMey, 109 Iowa 733; Hale v. S., 122 Ala. 85, 26 So. 61, 80 N. W. 225. 236; Leslie v. S., 35 Pla. 171, 17 So. "^S. V. Sneff, 22 Neb. 481, 35 N. W. 555; S. v. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, 27 219; Thompson v. S., 18 Ind. 386, N. W. 781; Kennedy v. S., 81 Ind. 81 Am. Dec. 364; S. v. Stickney, 53 379. Kan. 308, 36 Pac. 714, 42 Am. St. ""Winslow v. S., 26 Neb. 308, 41 284; P. v. Morton, 4 Utah 407, 11 N. W. 1116; Thomas v. S., 97 Ala. Pac. 512; Lyons v. S., 68 111. 281. 3, 12 So. 409; S. v. Golden, 49 Iowa See S. V. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 80 48; S. v. Rand, 33 N. H. 216; S. v. N. W. 225, 46 L. R. A. 864. Lee, 95 Iowa 427, 64 N. W. 284. "Lyons v. P., 68 111. 271; S. v. See P. v. Smith, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) McDonald, 9 W. Va. 456; S. v. 329. Short, 54 Iowa 392, 6 N. "W. 584; S. § 714 BURGLARY. 19^ for which he pays by the week and in which he keeps his personal effects, is the owner of the room and not a guest, under the law of burglary/^ The Janitor of a school-house is the owner of the building and the school books therein, within the meaning of the law of bur- glary, where he has possession and control of such house.*' A bailee who had possession of the goods taken by burglary or larceny is the owner thereof, though he were a gratuitous bailee.*' § 714. Husband or wife, owner. — In an indictment for burglary, the husband, if living with his wife; niay be alleged as the owner, though the house belongs to his wife.'*" The ownership of the house entered may be laid in the wife if she has possession of it, though owned by her husband who is not living with her.°^ § 715. Statement of ovmersMp — Owner dead. — An indictment for burglary failing to state the owner of the house is fatally defective.^^ The indictment charged the defendant with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of the late John Tate. Held defective in not al- leging ownership of the house. The late John Tate means a dead man, and the dead can own no property.^* § 716. Ownership and "occupied." — An indictment alleging that the defendant broke and entered the storehouse of "The Walker Iron and Coal Oompany" sufficiently states the ownership without stating whether such company was a corporation or firm.^* And all the in- dividual members composing a firm need not be alleged: it is suifi- «S. V. Jolmson, 4 Wash. 593, 9 "^ S. v. Reece, 27 W. Va. 375; Com. Am. C. R. 145, 30 Pac. 672-; P. v. St. v. Perris, 108 Mass. 1; S. v. Pockler, Clair, 38 Cal. 137. See Rodgers v. 22 Kan. 542; S. v. Morrissey, 22 P., 86 N. Y. 360, 40 Am. R. 548; P. Iowa 158; Jackson v. S., 55 Wis. 589. v. Bush, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 552. 13 N. W. 448; P. v. Parker, 91 CaL "'Lamater v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 249, 91, 27 Pac. 537; Pells v. S., 20 Fla. 42 S. W. 304. 774, 5 Am. C. R. 97. But contra, "Wimbish v. S., 89 Ga. 294, 15 where not required by statute: S. S. B. 325. v. Wright, 19 Or. 258, 24 Pac. 229. " S. V. Short, 54 Iowa 392, 6 N. W. See S. v. Clifton, 30 La. 951. 584; Yarborough v. S., 86 Ga. 396, ^^Beall v. S., 53 Ala. 460, 2 Am. 12 S. B. 650. See S. v. Trapp, 17 C. R. 463; 2 Hale P. G. 181. See S. S. C. 467, 43 Am. R. 614; Young v. v. Pranks, 64 Iowa 39, 19 N. W. S., 100 Ala. 126, 14 So. 872; Jackson 832. Compare Anderson v. S., 48 V. S., 102 Ala. 167, 15 So. 344; S. v. Ala. 665, 2 Green C. R. 620. Peach, 70 Vt. 283, 40 Atl. 732. "Hatfield v. S., 76 Ga. 499; P. v. "Tilly v. S., 21 Fla. 242; S. v. Henry, 77 Cal. 445, 19 Pac. 830; Perkins, 1 Ohio Dec. R. 55. Fisher v. S., 49 N. J. L. 162. 200 HUGHES' CiilMINAL lAW. § 717 cient to lay the ownership in any one partner.'' An indictment foif burglary in alleging the ownership of the building entered need not contain an averment that the building was occupied or controlled by the owner."' § 717. Duplicity, joining burglary and larceny. — ^An information, charging that the defendant feloniously entered the 'Tiouse, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store and building" of the owner named, with intent then and there and therein to commit lar- cenyj charges but one offense.'' An indictment alleging that the de- fendant broke and entered the house with intent to commit two sep- arate offenses, is not bad, the intent being only an ingredient of the crime.'' Burglary and larceny can be joined in the same count or indictment where the offenses grow out of the same transaction, and there may be a conviction of either charge." §718. "Store" is not "building"— "Stable."— Under a statute making it burglary by breaking and entering "any warehouse, bam, stable, outhouse, or any public building or other building whatever," an indictment charging the breaking and entering "a store" is de- fective unless it alleges that the "store" is a "building."'" The in- dictment averring that the defendant "broke and entered a stable" without averring that the "stable" was a building is sufficient.'^ § 719. Engine-room, not engine-house. — An indictment charging that the defendant entered the "engine-room of," etc., instead of the "engine-house," is defective, and the general clause of the statute, "or ^ Coates V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 257, 20 59 Iowa 290, 4 Am. C. R. 83, 13 N. W, S. W. 585; White v. S., 72 Ala. 195. 306; Hays v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 1147, See S. V. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, 27 33 S. W. 1104; S. v. Dooly, 64 Mo. N. W. 781; P. V. Edwards, 59 Cal. 146; Cunningham v. S., 56 Neb. 691, 359. 77 N. W. 60; Breese v. S., 12 Ohio •"Wilson V. S. (Tex. Cr., 1897), 42 St. 146; Borum v. S., 66 Ala. 468; S. W. 290. S. V. Flanagan (W. Va.), 35 S. E. " P. V. Henry, 77 Cal. 445, 19 Pac. 862. 830. See P. v. Hall, 94 Cal. 595, 30 "» Com. v. McMonagle, 1 Mass. 517. Pac. 7. Contra. S. v. Smith, 5 La. An. 340; "« S. V. Fox, 80 Iowa 312, 45 N. W. S. v. Haney, 110 Iowa 26, 81 N. W. S74. See S. v. Conway, 35 La. 350; 151. S. V. Christmas, 101 N. C. 749, 8 S. E. " Orrell v. P., 94 111. 456; Kincaid 361. V. P., 139 111. 217, 28 N. E. 1060. == Lyons v. P., 68 111. 271; Whar. See also, Gillock v. P., 171 111. 309, Cr. PL & Pr., § 244; Love v. P., 160 49 N. E. 712. 111. 502, 43 N. E. 710; S. v. Shaffer, 720 BURGLARY. 201 other building," will not onre the defect."^ But a railroad depot is included under the general clause, "other building.' . "«S § 720. Indictment sufficient after verdict. — The statute of Illinois is: "Whoever willfully and maliciously, without force (the doors and windows being open), enters into any freight or passenger rail- road ear with intent to commit larceny, shall be deemed guilty of burglary." The indictment failed to allege that the doors and win- dows were open — it simply alleged the car was open. Held sufficient after verdict.** § 721. "Granary" surplusage. — An indictment which charges the accused with committing burglary in the "granary, warehouse and building" of the owner, "a building in which divers goods, merchan- dise, and valuable things were then and there kept for sale and de- posited," sufficiently states the burglary in a warehouse, the word "granary" being mere surplusage.*' § 722. Bailroad corporation. — In charging the burglary of a rail- road car it is not necessary to allege that the railroad company is a corporation, partnership or stock company. The corporate existence will be implied.*" But if the indictment alleges that the railroad company is a corporation, such allegation must be proved.*^ § 723. Negative averinents. — An indictment alleging the burglary of a building "not adjoining or occupied with any dwelling-house," need not negative the statutory words, "not adjoining or occupied with any dwelling-house."** An information or indictment for bur- glary based upon a statute for breaking and entering "in the night time any office, shop or warehouse or any other building not adjoining or occupied with any dwelling-house, with intent to commit the crime of murder, rape, robbery, larceny or other felony," need not allege that ^ Kincaid v. P., 139 111. 217, 28 " Johnson v. S., 73 Ala. 483. Oon- N. B. 1060. tra, Crawford v. S., 44 Ala. 382. »=S. V. Edwards, 109 Mo. 315, 19 °» Gundy v. S., 72 Wis. 1, 38 N. W. S. W. 91. See also, S. v. Bishop, 51 328; S. v. Kane, 63 Wis. 260, 23 N. Vt. 287, 31 Am. R. 690. W. 488; Devoe v. Com., 3 Mete. "Brennan v. P., 110 111. 537. (Mass.) 316; Phillips v. Com., 3 "'S. V. Watson, 141 Mo. 338, 42 Mete. (Mass.) 588; Lamed v. Com., S. W. 726. 12 Mete. (Mass.) 240. Contra, "Norton v. S., 74 Ind. 337; S. v. Byrnes v. P., 37 Mich. 515; Koster Watson, 102 Iowa 651, 72 N. W. 283; v. P., 8 Mich. 431; Blckford v. P., S. V. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 1 S. W. 39 Mich. 209. See Com. v. Tuck, 37 336. Mass. 356. 202 hughes' criminal law, § 724 the building entered was "not adjoining or occupied with any dwell- ing-house.""' § 724. Descriptive words — Surplusage. — ^An indictment alleging the breaking and entry of a "lodging-house" with intent to steal, the same being then and there the dwelling-house of a person named, is sufficient; the descriptive words "lodging-house" may be rejected as surplusage.'^" § 725. Possession of burglar's tools. — An information alleging the possession of burglar's tools with intent to use them in breaking open places of deposit for the purpose of stealing money or property, sufB- ciently states the offense without specifying any particular place or property.''^ § 726. Value, description, ownership. — Ordinarily, in charging burglary with intent to steal, it is not necessary to describe the goods or state their value, unless such description or value becomes material by statutory definition or description of the offense.'^^ An indict- ment charging the burglary of a store or storehouse in which "goods, wares and merchandise and other valuable things were kept for use, sale or deposit," is fatally defective in not describing the valuable things and stating them to be of value. '^ But the value in dollars and cents need not be stated.'^* Where the value of the goods stolen is an essential ingredient of burglary, it must be alleged.''^ Unless required by statutory definition or description, it is not necessary to "Gundy v. S., 72 Wis. 1, 38 N. W. S., 76 Ga. 304; Reinhold v. S., 130 328, citing Ex parte Vincent, 26 Ala. Ind. 467, 30 N. E. 306; Duncan v. 145; S. V. Kane, 63 Wis. 260, 23 N. Com., 85 Ky. 614, 4 S. W. 321; Kelly W. 488, 6 Am. C. R. 99. Compare v. S., 72 Ala. 244; P. v. Ah Ye, 31 S. V. Bonknight, 55 S. C. 353, 33 S. Cal. 451; S. v. Becbwortli, 68 Mo. E. 451. 82; Hamilton v. S. (Tex Cr.), 24 ™ S. V. Miller, 3 Wash. 131, 28 S. W. 32. Pac. 375. "Neal v. S., 53 Ala. 465; Danner " Scott V. S., 91 Wis. 552, 65 N. W. v. S., 54 Ala. 127, 25 Am. R. 662; 61; P. V. Edwards, 93 Mich. 636, Robinson v. S., 52 Ala. 587. See 53 N. W. 778; Com. v. Tivnon, 74 Henderson v. S., 70 Ala. 23, 45 Am. Mass. 375. See Ryan v. Com., 5 R. 72; S. v. Sangford, 55 S. C. 322, Ky. L. 177. See P. v. Reilly, 63 N. 33 S. E. 370. Y. IS, 14 N. Y. Cr. 458; P. v. Jones "Matthews v. S., 55 Ala. 65; (Mich.), 82 N. W. 806. Pickett v. S., 60 Ala. 77; Hurt v. "S. V. Jennings, 79 Iowa 513, 44 S., 55 Ala. 214; Kelly v. S., 72 Ala. N. W. 799; S. v. Ray, 79 Iowa 765, 244. See Boose v. S., 10 Ohio St. 44 N. W. 800; Parley v. S., 127 Ind. 575; McCrary v. S., 96 Ga. 348, 23 419, 26 N. E. 898; S. v. Kane, 63 S. E. 409; Miller v. S., 77 Ala. 41. Wis. 260, 23 N. W. 488; P. v. Staple- '"P. v. Murray, 8 Cal. 519. ton, 2 Idaho 49, 3 Pac. 6; Lanier v. § 727 BTJKGLAKY. 203 allege in the indictment the ownership of the goods alleged to have been stolen at the time of the burglary.'" § 727. Attempt, sufficiency. — An indictment which alleged that the defendant "in the night time, feloniously did attempt to break and enter with intent, the goods and chattels in said building then and there being found then and there .feloniously to steal, take and carry away, and in such attempt did certain acts, but was then and there intercepted and prevented in the execution of said ofEense," was held sufficient.'^ § 728. Allegation, "without consent." — An indictment for the burglary of partnership premises, alleging the want of consent to the entry of each member of the firm composing the partnership, is suflBcient.'* § 729. Intent, essential. — An indictment failing to allege the in- tent with which the burglary was committed is fatally defective.'" But if the indictment, though it does not allege a felonious intent, charges that a felony was actually committed, it is sufficient.*" § 730. Statutory element, essential. — The breaking and entering "any shop, store, warehouse or other building, where goods, merchan- dise or other valuable thing is kept for use, sale or deposit, with intent to steal," is burglary as defined by statute. An indictment charging the burglary of a shop under such statute, failing to allege that any goods, merchandise or other valuable thing was there kept for use, sale or deposit, is defective.^^ "P. V. Shatier, 32 Cal. 36; S. v. 71; Bell v. S., 48 Ala. 684, 17 Am. Morrissey, 22 Iowa 158; Bowen v. R. 40. S., 106 Ala. 178, 17 So. 335; S. v. «» Olive v. Com., 5 Bush (Ky.) 376; ' Tyrrell, 98 Mo. 354, 11 S. W. 734; Davis v. S., 43 Tenn. 77; Barber v. Jones V. S., 18 Fla. 889. Contra, S., 78 Ala. 19; Com. v. Hersey, 84 Barnhart v. S., 154 Ind. 177, 56 N. E. Mass. 173; S. v. Shelton, 90 Tenn. 212. 539, 18 S. W. 253. "Com. V. Shedd, 140 Mass. 451, =" CrawfoM v. S., 44 Ala. 382; 5 Am. C. R. 61, 5 N. E. 254; White Williams v. S., 67 Ala. 183; Winslow V. P., 179 111. 358, 53 N. E. 570. v. S., 26 Neb. 308, 41 N. W. 1116; "Mixon V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 31 S. W. Lee v. S., 56 Ga. 477; S. v. Johns, 408. See Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 15 Or. 27, 13 Pac. 647. Contra, S. v. S. W. 395; Smith v. S. (Tex. Cr.), Sufferin, 6 Wash. 107, 32 Pac. 1021; 44 S. W. 521. S. V. Emmons, 72 Iowa 265, 33 N. W. "Reed v. S., 14 Tex. App. 662; 672. See Hale v. Com., 98 Ky. 353, P. V. Stewart, 44 Mich. 484, 7 N. W. 33 S. W. 91; S. v. Burns, 109 Iowa 436, 80 N. W. 545, 204 hughes' criminal law. § 731 § 731. Intended felony essential. — ^An indictment for burglary with intent to commit a felony, whicli fails to state what particular felony was intended, is fatally defective.'^ But it is not necessary to allege in the indictment the facts constituting the felony or ofEenge intended.'* § 732. Breaking and entry. — Under the statutory description of burglary, "breaking into" the house mentioned is an essential element and must be alleged in the indictment; and so must the indictment allege an entry. To charge that the defendant "broke into the house" is not sufficient.** § 733. "Within curtilage" essential. — ^Under a statute making it burglary to break and enter any building "within the curtilage of a dwelling-house," the indictment failing to allege the statutory words, to wit : "within the curtilage of a dwelling-house," will be fatally de- fective.*" Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 734. Possession of stolen goods. — The fat;t that a person is found in possession of recently stolen property without giving any reasonable explanation as to how he came in possession of it, is prima facie proof that he is guilty of burglary, where it is shown that the burglary and larceny were committed at the same time, constituting but one transac- tion.** But it has been held that such recent unexplained possession »=S. V. Williamson, 3 Heisk. "Pines v. S., 50 Ala. 153; Winston (Tenn.) 483; S. v. Lockhart, 24 Ga. v. Com., 9 Ky. L. 1004, 7 S. W. 900; 420; Mason v. P., 26 N. Y. 200; P. v. Webb v. Com., 87 Ky. 129, 7 S. W. Nelson, 58 Cal. 104; S. v. BucHanan, 899; S. v. Whitby, 15 Kan. 402; Fel- 75 Miss. 349, 22 So. 875; Portwood linger v. P., 15 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) V. S., 29 Tex. 47, 94 Am. Dec. 258; 128. White V. S., 1 Tex. App. 211; Wil- »» S. v. Sehuchmann, 133 Mo. Ill, burn v. S., 41 Tex. 237. But see 33 S. W. 35, 34 S. W. 842. See Bry- S. V. Powell, 61 Kan. 81, 58 Pac. ant v. S., 60 Ga. 358. Contra. Press- 968. Contra, Slaughter v. Com., 15 ley v. S., Ill Ala. 34, 20 So. 647. Ky. L. 569, 24 S. W. 622;'Linbeck v. =° Magee v. P., 139 111. 140, 28 N. E. S., 1 Wash. 336, 25 Pac. 452. 1077; Longford v. P., 134 111. 444, "^S. V. Mecum, 95 Iowa 433, 64 25 N. E. 1009; Smith v. P., 115 111. N. W. 286; Com. v. Doherty, 64 17, 3 N. E. 733; S. v. Frahm, 73 Mass. 52; S. v. Watson, 102 Iowa Iowa 355, 35 N. W. 451, 7 Am. C. R. 651, 72 N. W. 283; S. v. Gay, 25 La. 134; S. v. Wilson, 137 Mo. 592, 39 472; P. v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614. Con- S. W. 80; S. v. Rivers, 68 Iowa 611, tra. Allen v. S., 18 Tex. App. 120; 27 N. W. 781; S. v. Owsley, 111 S. v. Williams, 41 Tex. 98; Bigham Mo. 450, 20 S. W. 194; S. v. Moore, V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 244, 20 S. W. 577. 117 Mo. 395, 22 S. W. 1086; S. T. § 735 BUEaLAKY. 205 is only prima facie proof of the larceny, and not of the bur- glary." § 735. Mere possession, not suiRcient. — The failure of the accused to account for property found in his possession, soon after the bur- glary, is not sufficient to support a conviction without proof that the property was taken from the house broken and entered.** § 736. Possession of defendant and wife or others. — Evidence that the goods stolen by burglary were found in possession of the defend- ant's wife, is competent on a charge of burglary, if the wife was living with him at the time of the burglary.** Or if the stolen goods were found in possession of a person with whom the defendant had fre- quently associated both before and after the crime, it is competent to show that fact.*" And on the trial of one defendant jointly indicted with others it is competent to show that part of the goods stolen were found in possession of his co-defendants where it appears they were together during the night of the burglary.*^ § 737. Possession of defendant, and others. — The only evidence tending to connect the defendant with the burglary charged was that some of the stolen goods were found in a trunk used jointly by him La Grange, 94 Iowa 60, 62 N. W. Palvey v. S., 85 Ga. 157, 11 S. B. 664; Davis v. S., 76 Ga. 16; Brown v. 607; Davis v. P., 1 Park. ,Cr. (N. Y.) S., 61 Ga. 311; Harris v. S., 61 Miss. 447; Metz v. S., 46 Neb. 547, 65 N. W. 304; Branson v. Com., 92 Ky. 330, 190; P. v. Hart, 10 Utah. 204, 37 Pac. 13 Ky. L. 614, 17 S. W. 1019; Morgan 330; S. v. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510; S. v. S., 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 488; v. Graves, 72 N. C. 482; S. v. Ryan Com. V. Frew, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 492; (Iowa), 85 N. W. 813; Underbill S. V. Ham, 98 Iowa 60, 66 N.W. 1038; Cr. Ev., § 378. Com. V. Millard, 1 Mass. 6; P. v. s'Porterfield v. Com., 91 Va. 801, Wood, 99 Mich. 620, 58 N. W. 638; 22 S. B. 352; P. v. Frazier, 2 Mangham v. S., 87 Ga. 549, 13 S. B. wheeler Cr. C. (N. Y.) 55; S. v. 558; S. V. Ray, 79 Iowa 765, 44 N. W. Shaffer, 59 Iowa 290, 13 N. W. 306. 800; Anderson v. Com,, 18 Ky. L. ^King v. S., 99 Ga. 686, 26 S. E. 99, 35 S. W. 542; McKinney v. S. 480- p. v. Gordon, 40 Mich. 716, 3 (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 271; Christian Am'. C. R. 29; S. v. Powell, 61 Kan. V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. W. 252; Trent gl, 58 Pac. 968; S. v. Dashman, 153 V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 251, 20 S. W. 547; mo. 454, 55 S. W. 69. See Johnson v. Cox V. Com., 10 Ky. L. 597, 9 S. W. Ter., 5 Okla. 695, 50 Pac. 90. 804; Brooks v. S., 96 Ga. 353, 23 »Medicus v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. S. E..413, 10 Am. C. R. 136. Contra, w. 878. Ryan v. S., 83 Wis. 486, 53 N. W. » Frazier v. S., 135 Ind. 38, 34 N. 836; Stuart v. P., 42 Mich. 255, 3 N. e. 817. W. 863; P. V. Gordon, 40 Mich. 716; « Branson v. Com., 92 Ky. 330, 13 P. V. Flynn, 73 Cal. 511, 15 Pac. 102; Ky. L. 614, 17 S. W. 1019; Riding Gravely v. Com., 86 Va. 396, 10 S. E. y. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 452, 50 S. W. 431; Taliaferro v. Com., 77 Va. 411; 698. 206 hughes' criminal law. § 738 and another person, five months after the burglary. Held not sufiS- cient to sustain a conviction. °^ Property recently stolen by means of burglary, found in the possession of a person jointly with another, without other evidence is not proof of the guilt of such person.'^ Or if the stolen goods were found in a room occupied by the defendant and another person, it is not conclusive that the goods were in posses- sion of either of them.'* Evidence that some of the goods stolen by burglary were found in the house of a third person is not competent against the defendant, unless it be further shown that the two acted together and that such third person had exclusive possession of the goods so found.'^ § 738. Stolen goods admissible. — Goods stolen at the time of a burglary, found in possession of the defendant and identified by the owner, may be admitted in evidence as tending to prove the defendant guilty of the burglary.'* § 739. Possession — ^Burden on defendant. — If the defendant, soon after the commission of the burglary, was found in possession of the stolen goods, this would cast on him the burden of explaining his possession.'^ § 740. Implements, competent. — Tools and implements adapted to the purpose of the burglary or larceny charged, found in possession of the defendant soon after the burglary, may be introduced in evi- dence.'* And where several defendants were together at the time of their arrest shortly after the burglary with which they were charged, evidence that one of them had burglar's tools in his possession when arrested is competent." »= S. v. Tilton, 63 Iowa 117, 18 " Cooper v. S., 87 Ala. 135, 6 So. N. W. 716. 303; P. v. Abbott, 101 Cal. 645, 36 »=S. v. Warford, 106 Mo. 55, 16 Pac. 129; P. v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481, 29 S. W. 886, 27 Am. St. 322. Pac. 1026; Neal v. S., 53 Ala. 465. » Shropshire v. S., 69 Ga. 273. But see Cornwall v. S., 91 Ga. 277, See Randolph v. S., 100 Ala. 139, 14 18 S. E. 154; Falvey v. S., 85 Ga. So. 792; Sparks v. S., Ill Ga. 836, 35 157, 11 S. B. 607. S. E. 684. «P. v. Hope, 62 Cal. 291; S. v. "'Jackson v. S., 28 Tex. App. 143, Dubois, 49 Mo. 573; Com. v. Wil- 12 S. W. 701; Jackson v. S., 28 Tex. liams, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 582; P. v. App. 370, 13 S. W. 451. Lamed, 7 N. Y. 445; Cornwall v. "Walker v. S., 97 Ala. 85, 12 So. S., 91 Ga. 277, 18 S. E. 154. See 83; Cornwall v. S., 91 Ga. 277, 18 Foster v. P., 63 N. Y. 619; Underbill S. E. 154; Walker v. Com., 28 Gratt. Cr. Ev., § 375. (Va.) 969; S. v. Harrison, 66 Vt. "S. v. Franks, 64 Iowa 39, 19 N. 523, 29 Atl. 807, 44 Am. St. 864. W. 832. In the following cases the §741 BURGLARY. 207 § 741. Footprints competent. — Any footprints of man or animal or wagon tracks recently made on or near the premises where the burglary was committed, may be considered as evidence; and the measurements of such tracks as compared with tracks made by the person accused may also be shown in evidence.^"" § 742. Value of articles immaterial. — The ownership of the build- ing entered, the property stolon, the numher of articles taken or the value thereof are not essential elements of burglary, and need not be strictly proved as alleged in the indictment.^ § 743. Other offense. — On a charge of having possession of tools and implements designed and intended by the accused to commit burglary, it is proper to show that he on previous occasions had com- mitted burglary by the use of similar tools, as tending to prove the knowledge and intent alleged in the indictment." explanations given by the defend- ants as to how they came in pos- session of goods recently stolen by hurglary, proved unsatisfactory: Mooney v. S., 2 Wash. 487, 28 Pac. 363; Lightfoot v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 650; Magee v. P., 139 111. 138, 28 N. B. 1077; Thomas v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 144; Fletcher v. S., 93 Ga. 180, 18 S. E. 555; Wynn v. S., 81 Ga. 744, 7 S. B. 689; Payne v. S., 21 Tex. App. 184, 17 S. W. 463. Contra, Morgan v. S., 25 Tex. Apjp. 498, 8 S. W. 488; Field v. S., 24 Tex. App. 422, 6 S. W. 200. See the fol- lowing cases where the fruits of the burglary were traced to the de- fendants by circumstantial evidence of sufficient weight to sustain con- victions: Murks V. S., 92 Ga. 449, 17 S. E. 266; Wright v. S., 91 Ga. 80, 16 S. E. 259; Wilerson v. S., 73 Ga. 799; Wilson v. S., 55 Ga. 324; Boswell V. S., 92 Ga. 581, 17 S. E. 805; Gaines v. S., 89 Ga. 366, 15 S. E. 477; S. v. Harrison, 66 Vt. 523, 29 Atl. 807; S. v. Bryant, 134 Mo. 246, 35 S. W. 597; P. v. Hagan, 60 Hun 577, 14 N. Y. Supp. 233; P. v. Burns, 67 Mich. 537, 35 N. W. 154; Cummins v. P., 42 Mich. 142, 3 N. W. 305; S. V. Jones, 19 Ne'v. 365, 11 Pac. 317; Wright v. Com., 82 Va. 183; Johnson v. Com., 12 Ky. L. 873, 15 S. W. 671; Eubanks v. S.. 82 Ga. 62, 9 S. E. 424; P. v. Jochin- sky, 106 Cal. 638, 39 Pac. 1077; Dawson v. S., 65 Ind. 442; P. v. Wood, 99 Mich. 620, 58 N. W. 638; Murphy v. S., 86 Wis. 626, 57 N. W. 361 (conspiracy); Jackson v. S., 28 Tex. App. 370, 13 S. W. 451 (con- spiracy) ; Knickerbocker v. P., 43 N. Y. 177; S. V. Babb, 76 Mo. 501; Lang- ford V. S., 17 Tex. App. 445; P. v. Arthur, 93 Cal. 536, 29 Pac. 126; Dodd V. S., 33 Ark. 517; Miller v. S., 91 Ga. 186, 16 S. B. 985; Harris v. S., 84 Ga. 269, 10 S. E. 742; P. v. Getty, 49 Cal. 581; Matthews v. S., 86 Ga. 782, 804, 13 S. B. 16; Frank V. S., 39 Miss. 705. ™ Miller v. S., 91 Ga. 186, 16 S. E. 985; Harris v. S., 84 Ga. 269, 10 S. E. 742; Cooper v. S., 88 Ala. 107, 7 So. 47; Bryan v. S., 74 Ga. 393; Collins V. Com., 15 Ky. L. 691, 25 S. W. 743. 1 Underbill Cr. Bv., § 373, citing S. v. Porter, 97 Iowa 450, 66 N. W. 745; S. V. Lee, 95 Iowa 427, 64 N. W. 284; S. V. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257, 20 S. W. 34; S. v. Tyrrell, 98 Mo. 354, 11 S. W. 734; Johnson v. Com.. 87 Ky. 189, 10 Ky. L. 100, 7 S. W. 927; Farley v. S., 127 Ind. 419, 26 N. E. 898. ' Com. V. Day, 138 Mass. 186. See P. V. Howard, 73 Mich. 10, 40 N. W. 789; TTnderhill Cr. Ev., § 376, citing 208 HUGHES CKIMINAL LAW. §744 § 744, Proof of intent. — On a charge of breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit larceny, such intent must be proved.'' And such intent may be proved by showing that the de- fendant at the same time committed a felony in an adjoining build- ing.* The particular intent alleged in the indictment on a burglary charge must be proved as alleged : as, if the intent alleged be to steal the goods of a person named, the proof must show that such person was the owner of the goods.° § 745. Value, as description. — The value of the property stolen from the premises entered by burglars may be shown, though not alleged in the indictment, as being material description of the prop- erty.° And where the value of the property is unnecessarily alleged, it must be proven.'' § 746. Other goods, competent. — Other goods than those alleged in the indictment may be shown to have been taken at the time of the Dawson v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 535, 25 S. W. 21; Marshall v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. 878; Frazier v. S., 135 Ind. 38, 34 N. B. 817; S. v. Robinson, 35 S. C. 340, 14 S. E. 766; S. v. Weldon, 39 S. C. 318, 17 S. E. 688. = Ashford v. S., 36 Neb. 38, 53 N. W. 1036. See S. v. Cowell, 12 Nev. 337; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 377; S. v. Crawford, 8 N. Dak. 539, 80 N. W. 193. ♦ Osborne v. P., 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 583; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 376. 'Neubrandt v. S., 53 Wis. 89, 9 N. W. 824; S. v. Carroll, 13 Mont. 246, 33 Pac. 688; Allen v. S., 18 Tex. App. 120. See Berry v. S., 92 Ga. 47, 17 S. E. 1006; S. v. Mecbe, 42 La. 273, 7 So. 573. Contra, Mul- rooney v. S., 26 Ohio St. 326. The evidence in the following cases suffi- ciently proves the intent to sustain convictions:! — Intent to commit lar- cency: S. v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 Pac. 969; Clifton v. S., 26 Fla. 523, 7 So. 863; P. v. Soto, 53 Cal. 415; S. V. McBryde, 97 N. C. 393, 1 S. E. 925; P. v. Curley, 99 Mich. 238, 58 N. W. 68; Hill v. Com., 12 Ky. L. 914, 15 S. W. 870; Mullens v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 149, 32 S. W. 691; P. v. Calvert, 67 Hun 649, 22 N. Y. Supp. 220; P. V. Morton, 4 Utah 407, 11 Pac. 512. 2 — Intent to commit rape: Ford v. S. (Tex. Cr. App., 1899), 54 S. W. 761; S. v. Powell, 94 N. C. 965; Harvey v. S., 53 Ark. 425, 14 S. W. 645. 3— Intent suffi- ciently inferred; Alexander v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 359, 20 S. W. 756; Stead- man V. S., 81 Ga. 736, 8 S. B. 420; Franco v. S., 42 Tex. 276; S. v. Fox, 80 Iowa 312, 45 N. W. 874, 20 Am. St. 425; Burrows v. S., 84 Ind. 529. The evidence in the following cases held not sufficient to prove the in- tent alleged: 1 — Intent to commit larceny: Price v. P., 109 111. 109; S. V. Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 7 S. E. 413, 13 Am. St. 875. 2— Intent to commit rape: Mitchell v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 479, 24 S. W. 280; Mitchell v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 575, 28 S. W. 475; Ham- ilton V. S., 11 Tex. App. 116; Cole- man V. S., 26 Tex. App. 252, 9 S. W. 609; Davis v. S., 22 Fla. 633. » Tarver v. S., 95 Ga. 222, 21 S. E. 381; Franks v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1898), 45 S. W. 1013. ■ ' Gilmore v. S., 99 Ala. 154, 13 So. 536. Contra, Duncan v. Com., 85 Ky. 614, 4 S. W. 321; Brown v. S., 72 Miss. 990, 18 So. 431. See Berger- on V. S., 53 Neb. 752, 74 N. W. 253. §747 BURGLARY. 209 burglary, though belonging to different persons.' And it may be shown that such other goods were found in possession of the defend- ant, on the trial of a burglary charge.^ § 747. Identifying goods. — Goods alleged to have been stolen by burglary may be identified by means of labels or tabs attached to them, and by evidence that the goods found in possession of the de- fendant were of the same quality as the goods which were stolen from the owner.^" And articles of property brought from the store in which larceny was committed, similar to the goods found in the de- fendant's house, are competent evidence as tending to identify the goods alleged to have been stolen.^^ § 748. Testimony incredible. — The jury were fully justified in disbelieving the evidence of both the defendant and his witness, as to ' Lega V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 38, 34 S. W. 926, 35 S. W. 381; Foster v. P., 63 N. Y. 619, 3 Hun 6; S. v. Wrand, 108 Iowa 73, 78 N. W. 788. 'Neubrandt v. S., 53 Wis. 89, 9 N. W. 824. See In re Hall, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 593. The evidence in the fol- lowing cases was held sufficient as identifying the defendants: Seling V. S., 18 Neb. 548, 26 N. W. 254; Spahn V. P., 137 111. 538, 27 N. E. 688; S. V. Turner, 110 Mo. 196, 19 S. W. 645; Matthews v. S., 86 Ga. 782, 804, 13 S. E. 16; Steadman v. S., 81 Ga. 736, 8 S. E. 420. See P. v. Noonan, 60 Hun 578, 14 N. Y. Supp. 519. But not sufficient in the fol- lowing: Kelly V. S. (Tex. Or.), 22 S. W. 588; Coleman v. S., 26 Tex. App. 252, 9 S. W. 609. "P. V. Wood, 99 Mich. 620, 58 N. W. 638; Cole v. P., 37 Mich. 544; Woodruff V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 573. "P. V. Van Dam, 107 Mich. 425, 65 N. W. 277. But see Crane v. S., Ill Ala. 45, 20 So. 590. The evidence in the following cases sufficiently proved the identity of the stolen goods: Gravely v. Com., 86 Va. 396, 10 S. E. 431; Langford v. P., 134 111. 444, 25 N. E. 1009; Branson v. Com., 92 Ky. 330, 17 S. W. 1019, 13 Ky. L. 614. But not sufficient in the fol- lowing: Green v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 31 HDGHES' C. L.— 14 S. W. 386. The evidence in the fol- lowing cases sufficiently proves a "breaking and entering:" Williams V. S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 609; P. v. Curley, 99 Mich. 238, 58 N. W. 68; Painter v. S., 26 Tex. App. 454, 9 S. W. 774; Prescott v. S. (Miss.), 18 So. 683; P. v. Robinson, 86 Mich. 415, 49 N. W. 260; P. v. Block, 60 Hun 583, 15 N. Y. Supp. 229; Poster V. P., 63 N. Y. 619; S. v. Kenney, 101 Mo. 160, 14 S. W. 187; Seling v. S., 18 Neb. 548, 26 N. W. 254; S. v. Warford, 106 Mo. 55, 16 S. W. 886, 27 Am. St. 322; S. v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 34, 21 N. W. 843; Com. v. Merrill, 1 Thacher Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 1. But not sufficient in the follow- ing cases: Jones v. S., 25 Tex. App. 226, 7 S. W. 669; Fisher v. S., 93 Ga. 309, 20 S. E. 329; Williams v. S., 52 Ga. 580. The evidence in the following cases sustains night-time burglary: S. v. McKnight, 111 N. C. 690, 16 S. B. 319; P. v. Getty, 4D Cal. 581; Williams v. S., 60 Ga. 445; P. V. Griffin, 19 Cal. 578; Brown v. S., 59 Ga. 456; Houser v. S., 58 Ga. 78; P. V. Tracy, 121 Mich. 318, SO N. W. 21. But not sustained in the following: Ashford v. S., 36 Neb. 38, 53 N. W. 1036. Held day-time burglary in the following: P. v. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638, 53 N. W. 777. 210 hughes' criminal law. § 749 the purchase of the watch. They contradict each other as to the amount paid for it. Neither of them pretends to give a description of the person from whom it was purchased. The evidence of the defendant that he bought a watch of the description of the one in question for the insignificant price of one dollar is unreasonable.^^ § 749. Evidence insufficient. — The defendant had visited a saloon on one Sunday about ten o'clock, in the month of May, to get whisky, the entrance being by the back door. He went back about half an hour afterwards and was seen leaning through the top of the window, his body being half way over. He was asked what he was doing. He said he wanted whisky. He said further he thought there were per- sons in the saloon, but they did not want to let him in: Held not sufficient to establish attempt to commit burglary.^* § 750. Wayhills, as to shipping. — Waybills and entries of receiv- ing clerks made in checking up the contents of a car are competent S.S original evidence on the trial of a burglary charge.^* § 751. Variance, as to description. — A variance between the de- scription of the property alleged to have been taken at the time of the burglary, and that shown by the evidence, is not material on a conviction of the charge of burglary.^" "Magee v. P., 139 111. 140, 28 N. Div. 174; "P. v. Sears, 119 Cal. 267, E. 1077; Wynn v. S., 81 Ga. 744, 7 51 Pac. 325; Richardson v. S. (Tex. S. E. 689; Gravely v. Com., 86 Va. Or.), 42 S. W. 996; Favro v. S., 39 396, 10 S. B. 431. Tex. Cr. 452, 46 S. "W. 932; Grim- "Feister v. P., 125 III. 349, 17 shaw v. S., 98 Wis. 612, 74 N. W. IST. E. 748. The evidence in the fol- 375; S. v. Coates, 22 Wash. 601, 61 lowing cases was held sufficient to -Pac. 726. But not sufficient in the sustain convictions: S. v. Munson, 7 following cases: Hite v. Com., 88 Va. Wash. 239, 34 Pac. 932; P. v. Win- 882, 14 S. E. 696; Tarpe v. S., 95 tars, 93 Cal. 277, 28 Pac. 946; Ter. Ga. 457, 20 S. E. 217; Munson v. S., -V. Booth (Ariz.), 36 Pac. 38; S. v. 34 Tex. Cr. 498, 31 S. W. 387; Wright ■Cash, 38 Kan. 50, 16 Pac. 144; S. v. v. S., 21 Neb. 496, 32 N. W. 576; Christmas, 101 N. C. 749, 8 S. E. Prather v. Com., 85 Va. 122, 7 S. E. 361; Hackett v. S., 89 Ga. 418, 15 178; Johnson v. Com., 29 Gratt S. E. 532; Burks v. S., 92 Ga. 461, (Va.) 796; Swan v. Com., 104 Pa. 17 S. B. 619; S. v. Turner, 106 Mo. St. 218; James v. S., 77 Miss. 370, 272, 17 S. W. 304; Boyer v. Com., 14 26 So. 929 (corporation); Bundick Ky. L. 167, 19 S. W. 845; Gregory v. v. Com., 97 Va. 783, 34 S. E. 454; S., 80 Ga. 269, 7 S. E. 222; S. v. Fox, Porter v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 50 S. 80 Iowa 312, 45 N. W. 874, 20 Am. St. W. 380; P. v. Cronk, 58 N. Y. Supp. 425; P. V. Hogan (Mich., 1900), 81 13, 40 App. Dlv. 206. N. W. 1096; Hunt v. S., 103 Wis. "Dawson v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 535, 559, 79 N. W. 751; Glover v. S. (Tex. 25 S. W. 21, 40 Am. St. 791. Cr., 1898), 46 S. W. 824; S. v. Mar- « S. v. Dale, 141 Mo. 284, 42 S. shall, 105 Iowa 38, 74 N. W. 763; P. W. 722. TT. Lyons, 51 N. Y. Supp. 811, 29 App. § 752 BCJKGLAKY. 211 § 752. Variance — Force or fraud. — An allegation of burglary by force will not be supported by evidence of threats or fraud. If force be alleged, the evidence must show entry by force.^^ § 753. Variance — ^Larceny or robbery. — A charge of burglary with intent to commit larceny will be sustained though the proof shows the intent was to commit robbery.^^ On an indictment alleging bur- glary with intent to commit grand and petit larceny, the intent to commit both grand and petit larceny need not be proved.^^ § 754. Variance — ^Location, "ginhouse" or "storehouse." — Proof of a three-story building will support an allegation of a two-story build- ing.^" Proof of the location of the house at one place in the county will not support an indictment alleging the house to be at a different place in the county.^" Proof of the burglary of a ginhouse will not sustain an allegation of breaking and entering a storehouse, the gin- house being located some distance from the storehouse. ^^ § 755. Variance — Ownership. — ^An indictment alleging the own- ership of the goods in question to be in two persons jointly will not be supported by proof that part of the goods were owned by one per- son and part by another.^'' Where the property stolen was owned by two persons jointly, proof that it was taken without the consent of one of the owners will sustain a conviction in the absence of any evi- dence that the defendant procured the consent of the other. The burden is on the defendant to show this fact.^^ § 756. Variance — Day or night. — Prpof of a burglary in the day time will not support the allegation of burglary in the night time — they being different offenses under the statute.^* And it seems that '"Buntain v. S., 15 Tex. App. 484; ^ S. v. Kelley, 66 N. H. 577, 29 Hnlan v. ,S. (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. Atl. 843. Compare S. v. Buechler, 57 866; Ross v. S., 16 Tex. App. 554. Ohio St. 95, 48 N. B. 507. See S. v. Huntley, 25 Or. 349, 35 ^ Givens v. S., 40 Fla. 200, 23 Soi Pac. 1065. 850. " S. V. Halford, 104 N. C. 874, 10 " S. v. Ellison, 58 N. H. 325. See S. E. 524; P. v. Crowley, 100 Cal. Henderson v. Com. (Va., 1900), 34 478, 35 Pac. 84. See S. v. Kepper, S. E. 881. Compare Kidd v. S., 101 65 Iowa 745, 23 N. W. 304. Contra, Ga. 528, 28 S. E. 990. Miller v. S., 28 Tex. App. 445, 13 '' Payne v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 290, 60 S. W. 646. S. W. 363. "P. V. Hall. 94 Cal. 595, 30 Pac. 7. « Bromley v. P., 150 111. 297, 37 "S. V. Porter, 97 Iowa 450, 66 N. B. 209; 10 Am. & Bng. Ency. L., p. N. W. 745. 562; Guynes v. S., 25 Tex. App. 584, 212 hughes' criminal law. . § 757 an indictment charging burglary without alleging that it was commit- ted either in the day time or night time will support the proof of a day time burglary, but not night time.^° § 757. Day or night Tmoertain. — Where the evidence leaves the time in which the offense was committed exactly balanced between day and night, that is, that it was committed within the period of about forty or forty-five minutes, one-half of which was day and one- half was night, the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt necessarily arising, and the conviction should not be for the highest grade.^^ § 758. Variance — ^Breaking into or out. — ^A statute provides that "if any person shall enter the dwelling-house of another with intent to commit a felony, or being in such house, shall commit any felony, and shall in either case break out of the said house in the night time, such person shall be deemed guilty of burglary."^'^ It is clear under this statute that an allegation that defendant did "break out" will not support evidence of "breaking into" the house.^* § 759. Variance as to name. — The information charged the bur- glary of the house of William Drake "and the proof was the Drake House," a "house kept by Mr. Drake" and "Mr. Drake lives there." Held a variance.^' § 760. Verdict, included offense. — If the indictment fails to allege all of the essential elements warranting the severer penalty, then the 8 S. W. 667; Waters v. S., 53 Ga. 3 "Wash. 131, 28 Pac. 375; S. v. 567. See Com. v. Glover, 111 Mass. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257, 20 S. W. 395; Hall v. P., 43 Mich. 417, 5 N. 34; Hall v. P., 43 Mich. 417, 5 N. W. 449; S. V. Anselm, 43 La. 195, 8 W. 449. See also Wilks v. S. (Tex. So. 583. Or., 1899), 51 S. W. 902. "> Schwahacher v. P., 165 111. 624, " Waters v. S., 53 Ga. 567, 1 Am. 46 N. E. 809; Bromley v. P., 150 111. C. R. 367. See Jones v. S., 63 Ga. 297, 37 N. E. 209. See P. v. Barn- 141; S. v. Prahm, 73 Iowa 355, 35 hart, 59 Cal. 381; Summers v. S., 9 N. W. 451; S. v. Jordan, 87 Iowa 86, Tex. App. 396; Bravo v. S., 20 Tex. 54 N. W. 63. App. 188; Nicholls v. S., 68 Wis. 416, "a stat. 8 Geo. IV. 32 N. W. 543, 7 Am. C. R. 108; Com. ^S. v. McPherson, 70 N. C. 239, V. Reynolds, 122 Mass. 454: Butler v. 2 Green C. R. 738. P., 4 Denio 68; S. v. Robertson, 32 ''•Jackson v. S., 55 Wis. 589, 13 Tex. 159; Com. v. Carson, 166 Pa. N. W. 448. St. 179, 30 Atl. 985; S. v. Miller, ^ 761 BUBGLARY. 213 lesser penalty may be inflicted if the indictment sufficiently charges the lesser offense.^" § 761. Burglary and larceny — Penalty. — On a charge of burglary and larceny in the same count of the indictment, there can not be a conviction of both followed by a separate penalty for each; but if there is a general verdict of guilty on such count, it is deemed a con- viction of the burglary only, and not for the larceny.^^ § 762. Jeopardy — Burglary or larceny. — An acquittal on a charge of burglary is a bar to another indictment for larceny committed at the same time of the burglary, constituting but one transaction.^^ But it has been held that a conviction for larceny committed at the same time a burglary was committed is not a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the burglary.^^ » Bromley v. P., 150 111.. 297, 37 «= Triplett v. Com., 84 Ky. 193, 8 N. E. 209; Harris v. P., 44 Mich. 305, Ky. L. 67, 1 S. W. 84; Miller v. S., 6 N. W. 677. 16 Tex. App. 417, 5 Am. C. R. 94. => S. V. McClung, 35 W. Va. 284, ^ S. v. Martin, 76 Mo. 337, 4 Am. 13 S. E. 654; 1 Hale P. C. 559; Yar- C. R. 87; Wilson v. S., 24 Conn. 57; borough v. S., 86 Ga. 396, 12 S. B. Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 496. 650. CHAPTBE XII. EOBBEET. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 763-763- II. Matters of Defense, §§ 770-773 III. Indictment, §§ 774-782- IV. Evidence, §§ 783-793 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 763. Definition. — Eobbery is the felonious and forcible taking from- the person of another his goods or money, to any value, by vio- lence or putting him in fear.^ The gist of the offense is the force or intimidation, and taking from the person, against his will, a thing of value belonging to the person assaulted, and such force or violenc& must be immediate to the person.^ § 764. Defendant's possession essential. — The crime is not com- plete unless the goods vrere actually in the possession of the accused. To illustrate : Where the accused, while in a struggle with the prose- cutor, cut from his girdle his purse, which fell to the ground without '4 Bl. Com. 242; 1 Hale P. C. 532; ford v. S., 90 Ga. 701, 9 Am. C. R. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 223; 2 Bish. Cr. L., 589, 17 S. E. 628; Hanson v. S., 43 § 1156; 2 Bast P. C. 707; P. v. An- Ohio St. 376, 1 N. E. 136, 5 Am. C. derson, 80 Cal. 205, 22 Pac. 139; R. 626; Fanning v. S., 66 Ga. 167, 4 Underbill Cr. Ev., § 358, citing Routt Am. C. R. 561; Shinn v. S., 64 Ind. V. S., 61 Ark. 594, 34 S. W. 262; P. 13, 3 Am. C. R. 398, 31 Am. R. 110; V. Church, 116 Cal. 300, 48 Pac. 125; Hall v. P., 171 111. 542, 49 N. E. 495; Pickerel v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 120, 30 Collins v. P., 39 111. 233; S. v. Nich- S. W. 617; P. V. McGinty, 24 Hun olson, 124 N. C. 820, 32 S. E. 813; (N. Y.) 62; Johnson v. S., 35 Tex. Young v. S., 50 Ark. 501, 8 S. W. Cr. 140, 32 S. W. 537; Doyle v. S., 828; Brennon v. S., 25 Ind. 403; S. 77 Ga. 513. See Snyder v. Com., 21 v. Miller, 83 Iowa 291, 49 N. W. 90; Ky. L. 1538, 55 S. W. 679. Thomas v. S., 91 Ala. 34, 9 So. 81. ''Burke v. P., 148 111. 74, 35 N. E. See 4 Bl. Com. 243. 376; S. V. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; Craw- (214) f 765 ROBBERY. 215 coming into custody of the accused, it is not robbery.' Where the property taken was attached to one's person or clothing, requiring force to detach it, such taking is robbery.* § 765. Taken without violence. — Where it appeared that the prop- erty was taken without any sensible or material violence to the person, it is merely larceny from the person, and not robbery.' If a thief by the use of any means puts a man in fear, causing a reasonable appre- hension of danger to his person or property, and while such fear exists takes his property, it is robbery, though no force or violence be used." § 766. Taken in presence of owner. — It is not necessary in a case of robbery to prove that the property was actually taken from the per- son of the owner : it is sufficient if it is taken in his presence.^ § 767. Ownership immaterial. — It is not necessary that the prop- erty should belong to the person from whose possession it was forcibly taken. But it must belong to some person other than the defendant.* § 768. Larceny included. — Larceny is included in the charge of robbery, and if the defendant be convicted of the larceny, the value »3 Greenl. Ev., § 225; 1 McClain 678, 9 S. W. 277; Williams v. S. Cr. L., § 471, citing Rex v. Farrel, 2 (Tex. Cr., 1900), 55 S. W. 500; Long East P. C. 557. See 1 Hale P. C. v. S., 12 Ga. 293; S. v. Nicholson, 533; James v. S.. 53 Ala. 380. 124 N. C. 820, 32 S. E. 813; Britt v. 'S. V. Garr, 43 Iowa 418; S. v. S., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 45; 1 Hale Broderick, 59 Mo. 318; S. v. McCune, P. C. 532; Reg. v. Cracknell, 10 Cox 5 R. I. 60; Evans v. S., 80 Ala. 4; C. C. 408. Threatening to accuse of Rex V. Lapier, 1 Leach 360. See P. crime: See Long v. S., 12 Ga. 293; V. Church, 116 Cal. 300, 48 Pac. 125; 2 East P. C. 715; Rex v. Hickman, 1 McDow V. S., 110 Ga. 293, 34 S. E. Leach 310; Britt v. S., 7 Humph. 1019. The gist of the offense is not (Tenn.) 45. an assault but an assault made will- ' S. v. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; Hill v. fully: Axhelm v. U. S., 9 Okla. 321, S., 42 Neb. 503, 60 N. W. 916; S. v. 60 Pac. 98. Calhoun, 72 Iowa 432, 34 N. W. 194; '3 Greenl. Ev., § 229; Hall v. P., 3 Greenl. Bv., § 228; Crawford v. S., 171 111. 542, 49 N. E. 495; Spencer 90 Ga. 701, 17 S. B. 628; Clements V. S., 106 Ga. 692, 32 S. B. 849; v. S., 84 Ga. 660, 11 S. E. 505, 8 Panning v. S., 66 Ga. 167; Johnson Am. C. R. 692; 2 Bish. Cr. L. (8th V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 140, 32 S. W. 537; ed.), § 1178; Turner v. S., 1 Ohia Davis V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1295, 54 St. 422; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 474; S. W. 959. See Duffy v. S., 154 Ind. Clary v. S., 33 Ark. 561; 1 Hale P. 250, 56 N. B. 209; Simmons v. S. C. 533; Rex v. Selway, 8 Cox C. C. (Pla., 1899), 25 So. 881. 235. ' S. V. Carr, 43 Iowa 418. See S. « P. v. Vice, 21 Cal. 344; S. v. Gor- V. Kennedy, 154 Mo. 268, 55 S. W. ham, 55 N. H. 152; Smedly v. S., 293; McCormick v. S., 26 Tex. App. 30 Tex. 215. 216 hughes' criminal law. § 769 of the property must be stated in the verdict to determine whether it is grand or petit larceny.® The defendant was indicted and tried for robbery in the first degree, and was convicted of robbery in the second degree, and the jury was discharged. As there was no degree in the crime charged in the indictment, the verdict was erroneous and not responsive to any issue presented, and was therefore set aside by the court, of its own motion. Grand larceny is included in robbery; and the defendant having been acquitted of robbery in the first degree, was also acquitted of grand larceny.^" § 769. Assatilt and battery included. — An indictment for assault with intent to rob will support a conviction for an assault and battery, and it is error to refuse to so charge the jury by instructions.^^ Article II. Matters of Defense. § 770. Taking by trick not robbery. — The taking of property fraudulently by means of some trick, without the use of any force or violence, is not robbery. There must be some force used to make the taking robbery.^^ § 771. Taking one's own forcibly. — Where the defendant lost his money at unlawful gaming and he compels the winner to return it by pointing a pistol at him, he will not be guilty of robbery.^^ § 772. Obtaining by threats. — Threatening to prosecute an inno- cent man for any crime whatever (except only the crimen innom- inatum ) , and by the fear arising from such threat to compel the sur- render of money or property, does not amount to robbery.^* ' Burke v. P., 148 111. 74, 35 N. E. " Hanson v. S., 43 Ohio St. 376, 376; S. V. Halford, 104 N. C. 874, 10 1 N. E. 136, 5 Am. C. R. 626. S. E. 524; S. v. Brown, 113 N. C. ^ Shinn v. S., 64 Ind. 13, 31 Am. «45, 18 S. E. 51; Haley v. S., 49 Ark. R. 110; S. v. Deal, 64 N. C. 270; 147, 7 Am. C. R. 330, 4 S. W. 746; Bussey v. S., 71 Ga. 100; Bonsall v. P. V. Nelson, 56 Cal. 77; Matthews S., 35 Ind. 460; 2 East P. C. 702. V. S., 4 Ohio St. 539; S. v. Graff, 66 "Sikes v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 1353, 34 Iowa 482, 24 N. W. 6; P. v. Ken- S. W. 902; S. v. Hollvway, 41 Iowa nedy, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 532, 11 N. 200; Brown v. S., 28 Ark. 126. Gon- Y. Supp. 244. See Com. v. Shutte, tra, Carroll v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 130 Pa. St. 272, 18 Atl. 635; S. v. 99. Stanley, 109 Iowa 142, 80 N. W. 228. " Britt v. S., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) "S. V. Brannon, 55 Mo. 63, 2 Green 45; P. v. McDaniels, 1 Park. Cr. (N. C. R. 608; P. V. McGowan, 17 Wend. Y.) 198; Long v. S., 12 6a. 293; Walker v. S., 89 Ala. 74, 8 So. ''Com. V. Porter, 164 Mass. 576, 144. 42 N. E. 97. " S. V. Enslow, 10 Iowa 115. And ""S. V. Costello, 62 Conn. 130, 25 "cattle" will include pigs: Rex v. Atl. 477; Brown v. S., 76 Ind. 85; Chappie (Mich. T., 1804), 2 East P. S. V. Sparks, 60 Ind. 298; Todd v. C. 1076; S. v. Pruett, 61 Mo. App. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 232, 45 S. W. 596. 156; Swartzbaugh v. P., 85 111. 458. See Owens v. S., 52 Ala. 400; Sam- \ 228 hughes' criminal law. § 817 § 817. Poisonous article. — An indictment charging the defendant ■with exposing and depositing "paris green" with intent that a certain animal should eat it, is suflBcient without alleging that the paris green was poisonous.'^ § 818. Manner of wounding. — Charging in the indictment that the defendant did "cruelly beat and torture" a certain cow, the property of the defendant, being in the language of the statute, suflBciently states the offense, without averring the manner of the beating or wounding.'* § 819. Not duplicity. — An information containing three counts, the first charging cruelty to oxen by overworking them, the second failure to provide them with proper food and drink, and the third by depriving them of proper sustenance, states but a single offense. The gist of the offense is cruelty to animals.'' The indictment alleging that the defendant "did cruelly torture, maim, beat and wound his horse and deprive said horse of necessary sustenance," states but one offense.*" § 820. "Unlawfully" immaterial. — The statute provides that who- ever "wantonly and willfully injures" the property of another shall be guilty of an offense. An indictment alleging that the defendant "wantonly and willfully did injure" the property in question is suffi- cient without using the word "unlawfully."*^ § 821. Setting fire. — An indictment charging that the defendant did "unlawfully, willfully and maliciously enter upon the lands of" a certain person named, there situate, and did then and there set fire to the woods on said land, sufficiently states the offense.*^ § 822. Cruelty to fowls. — ^An indictment which charges that the defendant "unlawfully, willfully and needlessly did act in a cruel "S. V. Labounty, 63 Vt. 374, 21 "S. v. Haskell, 76 Me. 399; Com. Atl. 730. V. Lufkin, 89 Mass. 579; S. v. Bos- =*S. V. Goss, 74 Mo. 593; S. v. worth, 54 Conn. 1, 4 Atl. 248. See Greenlees, 41 Ark. 353. See Com. S. v. Gould, 26 W. Va. 258. v. McCIellan, 101 Mass. 34; S. v. " S. v. Martin, 107 N. C. 904, 12 Watkins, 101 N. C. 702, 8 S. E. 346. S. E. 194. »° S. v. Bosworth, 54 Conn. 1, 4 « S. v. Purdie, 67 N. C. 326. See Atl. 248; S. v. Gould, 26 W. Va. 258; S. v. WilUams, 21 Ind. 206. S. V. Harris, 11 Iowa 414. ^ 823 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 229 manner towards a certain fowl, to wit, a chicken, by killing the said «hicken," sufficiently states the offense of cruelty.*' § 823. Failure to feed — "ITnnecessarily." — ^Under a statute pro- Tiding that any one who, having the "charge or custody of any ani- mal," shall unnecessarily fail to provide it with food, an information ■charging that the defendant is the owner of the animal is not suffi- cient; it should allege that he had "charge and custody" of the animal.** Where, by statute, it is made a criminal offense to un- necessarily fail to provide an animal with food, etc., an indictment failing to charge that the act was "unnecessarily" done is defective.*' § 824. Indorsing prosecutor's name. — The objection that the pros- «cutor's name was not indorsed on the indictment can not be raised for the first time on error. It should have been made by a motion to ■quash the indictment before plea.*' Aeticle IV. Evidence; Variance. § 825. Other like acts. — On a charge of giving poison to a certain horse, evidence that the same kind of poisonous preparation was found in the boxes of another horse of the same owner, in the same barn, is competent as tending to prove the charge in the indictment.*^ § 826. Defendant's declarations. — On the trial of a charge of ma- licious mischief for injuring a fence belonging to a church society, evidence of declarations of the defendant tending to prove enmity towards the society or its officers is competent.** ■ § 827. Evidence of mitigation. — ^Evidence that the animal (mule) which the defendant is charged with maliciously killing was breachy "S. V. Neal, 120 N. C. 613, 27 lowing cases: S. v. Lightfoot, 107 S. E. 81. Iowa 344, 78 N. W. 41; S. v. Wilson, "S. V. Spink, 19 R. I. 353, 36 Atl. 3 Mo. 125; Ex parte Phillips, 33 Tex. «1. Cr. 126, 25 S. W. 629; S. v. Towle, 62 "Perrias v. P., 71 111. App. 559. N. H. 373. Indictment sufficient: See S. V. Clark, 86 Me. 194, 29 Atl. Hewitt v. S., 121 Ind. 245, 23 N. E. 83. S84; Hunt v. S., 3 Ind. App. 383, 29 " S. v. Lightfoot, 107 Iowa 344, N. E. 933 ("needlessly"); Com. v. 78 N. W. 41; Rex v. Mogg, 4 C. & Edmands, 162 Mass. 517, 39 N. B. P. 363. 183 ("cruelly"). "P. v. Ferguson, 119 Mich. 373, "Veain v. P., 40 111. 397. Indict- 78 N. W. 334. ment held not sufScient in the fol- 233) hughes' criminal law. § 828 and hqd; previousily tresp^sed on the defendant's premises, is cawe petent in mitigation (jf punishment^ though the delendant h^d, nota lawful fence inclosing his premises.*' § 8^8. Vafiwft^T-Husbajid or THKife— Title, — Evidence that the title to: the injured property was in the wife supports an allegation in the indictment that the husband was the owner where he and bis wife are residing together on the premises and on which he paid the taxes.?'' Vft^i^AC^ — '"la ew," "put dQors."--vWi'nfully bi*rning and destroying cotton stQoied in a car standing on a railroad track is not embraced in a statute making it an offense to "willfully burn or de- stroy the corn, cotton, shucksy or other provender in a stack, hill, pen, or secured in any other way, out of doors."°^ § 830. Variance — ^Diflferent offense..^Te.aring down and removiijg a fence on the land of another constitutes willful or malicious tres- pass on the real and personal property of t}ie owner, in violation of a certain section of the statute, differing from that section relating to inalicipus mischief."'' "Bennefleld v. S., 62 Ark. 365, 35 22 S. W. 42; S. v. Grimes, 101 Mo. S. W. 790. See McMahan v. S. 188, 13 S. W. 956. (Tex.),16 S. W. 171. Byidepce held "P. v. Coyne, 116 C^. 29?, 48 not sufficient: Miller v. S. (Tex. Pac. 218. Cr.), 42 S. W. 298; Woodward v. " S. v. Avery, 109 N. C. 798, 13 S. S., 33 Tex. Cr. S55, 28 S. W. 204; B. 931. See S. v. Walsh, 43 Minn. Brady v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 444, 45 N. W. 721. 621 (willful); Hoak v. S. (Tex. Cr.), '"Barkley v. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 185. 26 S. W, 508 (majice). EvidemQe See Cryer v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 6^1, 3^ sufficient: Shirley v. S. (Tex, Cr.), S. W. 203. chaptee ^iv. ARSON. Att I. Definition and; Blementb, .......§§> 831-844 II. Matters of Defense, - • §§ 84S-850 IH; Indictment, • §§ 851i-876 iV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 8W-«M Article I. Defistition and Elements. §'831. Definition, wbat constitutes ajson: — ATSdil is tHe malicious Irarning of tlie house of another. The term "house" iiiijidrts'a dwSlI- ing-house at common law.^ By statutory provisions of the different states, the common law definition of arson has been materially en- larged so as to include other different kinds of buildings aiid property besides dwelling-house. If any part of a dwelling-house, however small, is consumed, the oSense of arson is complete." But^ if the bnildiiEg is merely scorched or smoked the offense is not ebmiilete.* Rut whether or not the building was "bupned" wdthitt the meaning of the law is a question of fact for the jury to determine.* It is the burning of the house or building and not personal property withia the house which constitutes the criine of atson, within the meaning of t-he stiatute." •1 Hale P. C. 566; 4 Bl. Com. Com., 222; Underbill Cr. Bv., §367^ 2^0; 2 East P. C. 1015; 3 liist. 66; Woodford v; P., 62 N; y: 117, 20 Com. V. Barney, 10 Gush: 478; 1 Am. R. 464; S. v. Sandyi 3 Ired. McClain Cr. L., §§ 517, 518; Com. 576; Smith v. S;, 23 Tex. App. 357, V. Posey, 4 Call (Va.) 109, 2 Am. 5 S. Wl 219; 59 Am. R. 773; Blanch- Dec. 560; Underbill Cr. Bv;, § 366. ette v. S. (Tex. Cr.); 24 S. Wi 507^ ' S. V. Mitchell, 5 Ired. 350; Com. S. v. Babcock, 51 Vt. 570. V. Van Schaack, 16 Mass. 105, 8 Am. * Woolsey v. S.; 30' Tex; AJip. 346. C. R. 51 (note); Delaney v. S., 41 17 Si W. S^'B; Ubderhill Or. Bv„ Tex. 601, 1 Am. C. R. 88; Com. v. ^,367. Tucker, 110 Mass. 403, 2 Green C. R. * Com. v. Betton, 5 Cusb. (Mass.) 267; P. V. Haggerty, 46 Cal. 354, 2 427. Green C. R. 431; S. v. Taylor, 45 "Grabam v. S., 40 Ala. 659; Reg, Me. 322; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 55; 4 Bl. v. Nattrass, 15 Cox C. C. 73; P. v. (231) 232 hughes' criminal law. § 832 § 832. Dwelling-house defined. — To constitute arson it is necessary that the building burned be a dwelling-house in the same sense as in a charge of burglary. It must be a place of residence of the party named.* A house built for and once occupied as a dwelling-house, but unoccupied at the time of the burning, is not a dwelling-house under the statute.'^ But if the occupant be only temporarily absent, it is a dwelling-house.* § 833. Dwelling, curtilage, outhouse. — The curtilage of a dwell- ing-house is a space necessary and convenient and habitually used for the family purposes in carrying on the domestic employments. It need not be separated- from other lands by a fence.' An outhouse is one that belongs to a dwelling-house and is in some respects parcel of such dwelling-house, and situated within the curtilage.^" § 834. Bam, shed. — A building constructed of logs, in one part of which horses were kept and in another part fodder, hay and oats, with sheds adjoining where farming utensils were kept, is a barn within the meaning of the. statute prescribing the death penalty as a punish- ment for the burning of barns having grain in them.^^ § 835. Endangering other building. — The burning of a building so situated as to endanger a dwelling-house was arson at common law. It must be parcel of such dwelling or belonging or adjoining thereto.** Simpson, 50 Cal. 304; Rex v. Tay- Washington v. S., 82 Ala. 31, 2 lor, 2 East P. C. 1020. See P. v. So. 356; P. v. Taylor, 2 Mich. 251; Jones, 24 Mich. 215. Curkendall v. P., 36 Mich. 309. De- • P. V. Handley, 93 Mich. 46, 52 fined 3 Greenl. Ev., § 55. See Page N. W. 1032; S. v. Warren, 33 Me. 30; v. Com., 26 Gratt. (Va.) 943; 4 Bl. Com. V. Barney, 10 Cush. (Mass.) Com. 221. 478; Reg. v. Edgell, 11 Cox C. C. '° S. v. Roper, 88 N. C. 656; S. v. 132. See P. v. Fisher, 51 Cal. 319; Stewart, 6 Conn. 47; Hester v. S.. Henderson v. S., 105 Ala. 82, 16 So. 17 Ga. 130. See S. v. Carter, 49 S. 931; S. V. McGowan, 20 Conn. 245, C. 265, 27 S. E. 106; Whiteside v. 52 Am. Dec. 336; S. v. Wolfenberger, S., 44 Tenn. 175. 20 Ind. 242. " S. v. Cherry, 63 N. C. 493; Smith 'Hooker v. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) v. S., 28 Iowa 565. But see S. v. Jim, 763; S.,v. Clark, 7 Jones (N. C.) 8 Jones (N. C.) 459, and S. v. Laugh- 167. lin, 8 Jones (N. C.) 455. ■Meeks v. S., 102 Ga. 572, 27 S. "Hill v. Com., 98 Pa. St. 192; 1 E. 679; S. v. McGowan, 20 Conn. McClain Cr. L., § 519; Gage v. Shel- 245, 52 Am. Dec. 336; Johnson v. S., ton, 3 Rich. L. (S. C.) 242. See 48 Ga. 116. P. V. De Winton. 113 Cal. 405, 45 "S. V. Shaw, 31 Me. 523; Com. Pac. 708. V. Barney, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 480; ^836 . ARSON. 233 § 836. School-house. — A school-house is embraced in the term "any cither outhouse not parcel of any dwelling-house."^' A school-house is included in the term "dwelling-house."^* § 837. Jail, inhabited building. — A jail containing prisoners is re- garded as an inhabited building within the meaning of the law defin- ing arson.^'* § 838. Warehouse. — A building in which the owner stores his tools and materials used in his business is included in the term "ware- house" within the meaning of the statute relating to arson.^* § 839. Corn-crib. — ^Under a statute defining arson, a corn-crib is not included in the statutory words "barn, stable, coach-house, gin- house, storehouse or warehouse."^^ § 840. Shop — Store. — A "shop" within the meaning of the statute includes a house in which small quantities of goods of any kind are sold or in which mechanics work, or sometimes keep their manufac- tured goods or wares.^' § 841. Intent, burning another house. — If one kindles a fire in a stack of straw situated so that it is likely to communicate, and in fact communicates, to any. adjacent building, he is chargeable with burning the building ; or if he sets fire to his own house intending to and does burn his neighbor's, he commits the crime of arson.^* The feloniously setting fire to one building, which actually communicates to and burns another, is sufficient to convict the person of arson in burning the latter, irrespective of an intent to do so. He shall be "Jones V. Hungerford, 4 Gill & See S. v. Frank, 41 La. 596, 7 So. J. (Md.) 402; Wallace v. Young, 21 131. Ky. 155. "S. V. Morgan, 98 N. C. 641, 3 "S. v. O'Brien, 2 Root (Conn.) S. E. 927; McLane v. S., 4 Ga. 335. 516. "Combs v. Com., 93 Ky. 313, 20 «S. V. Collins, 2 Idaho 1182, 31 S. W. 221; S. v. Watson, 63 Me. 128. Pac. 1048; Com. v. Posey, 4 Call See also Woodford v. P., 62 N. Y. (Va.) 109, 2 Am. D. 560; P. v. Cot- 117; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 56; Com. v. teral, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 115. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42. See Meis- " Com. v. Uhrig, 167 Mass. 420, 45 ter v. P., 31 Mich. 99, 1 Am. C. R. N. E. 1047. See Allen v. S., 10 Ohio 91; 4 Bl. Com. 221; P. v. Orcutt, 1 St. 287; Carter v. S., 106 Ga. 372, Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 252; Hennessey 32 S. E. 345. V. P., 21 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 239; "S. V. Jeter, 47 S. C. 2, 24 S. E. Grimes v. S., 63 Ala. 166; S. v. 889. A "corn-crib" is a "corn-pen:" Laughlln, 8 Jones (N. C.) 354. Cook v. S., 83 Ala. 62, 3 So. 849. 234 hughes' criminal law. §842 ifefepoDsMe for all the probable consequences of his act.*' And the bu);den is on the defendant to show that he did not intead the conse- quences of his act.^^ ^ 842. Intent, bnrmng one's^ own house. — On a chaige of braiiing one's own Souse with intent to defraud any insuFanee company, tfe intent being the controlling element of the crime, the offense is cbia- plete, although the policy held by the accused may be invalid; if he believed it legal and valid, it is sufficient."^ § 843. Heans used. — Where a person acts willfully, it is not ma- terial by what means the burning is done, whether directly Iqr his own hand or by any other means : he is guilty of arson.*' § 844. Soliciting another to commit arson. — Soliciting another to commit arson and furnishing him materials for that purpose; is an a,ttempt to commit the crime, no matter whether the person solicitei takes any steps or not toward committing the offense."* But a bare solicitation of another to commit the crime is not an attempt."" An unsuccessful effort to set fire to the building is an attempt."* Akticle II. Matters op Defense. § 845. Owner burning or procuringl — A person does not commit arson by burning his own house or the house occupied by him as-his "Woodford V. P., 62 N. Y. 117-132; S. B. 488; P. v. Bush, 4 Hill (N. Y.) iMsk v. S., 64 Miss. 845, 2 So. 256; ' 133; S. v. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307; Mc- Overstreet v. S., 46 Ala. 30. See P. Dermott v. P., 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) V. Fanshawe, 137 N. Y. 68, 32 N. E. 102. 1103; Com. V. Harney, 51 Mass. 422; "McDade v. P., 29 Mich. 50. S. V. Byrne, 45 Conn. 273. =« S. v. Dennln, 32 Vt. 158; S. v. ^ S. V. Phifer, 90 N. C. 721. Johnson, 19 Iowa 230. See Kin- ^ McDonald V. P., 47 111. 536; Mar- ningham v. S., 120 Ind. 322, 22 N. tin V. S., 28 Ala. 71; Staaden v. P., E. 313. On the degrees of arson- ajs 82 111. 433, 25 Am. R. 333; S. v. defined by statute, see the following Byrne, 45 Conn. 273. See Jhons v. cases: Lacy v. S., 15 Wis. 15; Brown P., 25 Mich. 499. Contra, Meister v. S., 52 Ala. 345; Woodford v. P., V. P., 31 Mich. 99. 62 N. Y. 117, 3 Hun 310; Granison == Smith V. S., 23 Tex. App. 357, v. S., 117 Ala. 22, 23 So. 146; Wash- 5 S. W. 219, 59 Am. R. 773; Over- ington v. S., 68 Ala. 85; Henderson Street v. S., 46 Ala. 30; S. v. v. S., 105 Ala. 82, 16 So. 931; S. v. Squaires, 2 Nev. 226; McDade v. Grimes, 50 Minn. 123, 52 N. W. 275^; P., 29 Mich. 50; P. v. Trim, 39 Cal. S. v. Young, 153 Mo. 445, 55 S. W. 75. 82 (evidence). "S. V. Bowers, 35 S. C. 262, 14 1 846 ARSON. 235 dwfiUiags.*^ If tte owner of a house procures another to \(am. it, neither, the owner nor the person w&o burned it is guilty of arson;^* §' 846. Tenant burningr. — A tenant is not guilty of arson in bu,rn- ing^ the building occupied by him as such tenant.'" § 847. Prisoner burning prison. — If it appear from the evidence that a person confined in prison set fire to the door to burn off thf lock so as to make his escape, or that he burned a hole in the floor or in the wall for the same purpose, it would not be arson.^" I ^m. Statck of straw.-^— The prispner wa^ indicted for setting fire to„a, "stack of straw." The proof was ithait he set fire to a quantity pf stp^^r Ipaded on a lorry (wagon); to convey to market and bro.ughjt several miles on the way. The horses had been removed, and the lorry with the straw on it left in the yard of an inn ready to be taken on to marke;t nmi momning : Held, that a conviction could not be su,$tained andiwas quashed.'* § 849. Husband or wife burning. — .The wife, because of the legal identity with the husband, can not be guilty of the offense of burning the husband''s dwelling, even though living separate from him at the time. Nor can the husband be guilty of arson by the common law " S. V. Keena, 63 Conn. 329, 28 Atl. Contra, by statute: S. v. Moore, 61 522;. S. V. Sarvis, 45 S. C. 668, 24 Mo. 276; Allen v. S., 10 Ohio St. 287^ S. E. 53; Com. v. Mahar, 16 Pick. Mulligan v. S., 25 Tex. App. 199, 7 120; P. V. De Winton, 113 Cal. 403, S. W. 664, 8 Am. St. 435. See Lip- 45 Pac. 708; Bloss v. Tobey, 2 Pick, sehitz v. P., 25 Colo. 261, 53 Pac. (Mass.): 325. See S. v. Elder, 21 1111. La. 157; S. v. Rohfrisctit, 12 La. "Delany v. S:, 41 Tex. 601, 1 Am. 382; Erskine v. Com., 8 Gratt. (Va.) C. R. 88, citing P. v. Cotterall, 18 624; Com. v. Makely, 131 Mass. 421. Johns. (N. Y.) 115; S. v. Mitchell, ^Coni. V. Makely, 131 Mass. 421; 5 Ired. (N. C.) 350; Washington v. S. V. Sarvis, 45 S. C. 668, 24 S. E. S., 87 Ga. 12, 13 S. E. 131; Jenkins 53; Heard v. S., 81 Ala. 55, 1 So. v. S., 53 Ga. 33, 21 Am. R. 255. 640;; Roberts v. S., 47 Tenn. (7 Contra, Lockett v. S., 63 Ala. 5; Gold.) 359; S. v. Haynes, 66 Me. 307, Luke v. S., 49 Ala. 30, 20 Am. R. 22 Am.. R. 569. 269; Willis v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 534, 25 *■ Garrett v. S., 109 Ind. 527, 10 S. W. 123. N. E. 570; S. v. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487; =' Reg. v. Satchwell, 12 Cox C. C. McNeal v. Woods, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 449, 1 Green C. R. 199. A "stack of 485; Sullivan v. S., 5 Stew. & P. hay" is included in "goods, wares or (Ala.) 175; S. v. Hannett, 54 Vt. 83; merchandise, or other chattels," the Allen V. S., 10 Ohio St. 287; S. v. burning of which Is defined by stat- Fish, 3 Dutch. (N. J. L.) 323; 2 ute as arson: S. v. Harrvey, l-M Mo. East P. C. 1029; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 55. 343, 42 S. W. 938. 236 hughes' criminal law. § 850 rules, in burning the dwelling-house which his wife owns, if he lives with her and has rightful possession jointly with her at the time.** § 850. Jeopardy, splitting offenses. — Where a grist mill and all its contents, including the books of account of the owners of the mill, were destroyed by one and the same fire, and the defendant was prose- cuted for setting fire to and burning the mill and acquitted on such charge, this is a bar to another prosecution for setting fire to and burning the books of account.'* Article III. Indictment. § 851. Who is owner. — The dwelling-house must not be described as the house of the owner of the fee, if in fact at the time another has the actual occupancy, but it must be described as the dwelling-house of him whose dwelling it then is.** § 852. Building owned by firm. — ^An indictment for arson alleging the ownership of the building in question as belonging to a fimij baming the firm, and then naming the persons composing the firm, is sufiicient allegation of ownership.*" § 853. Owner, indictment, sufficiency. — It is not necessary to aver in the indictment that the building alleged to have been burned was in the possession of any person named, under a statute which makes it arson to set fire to a building, "whether such building shall then be in the possession of the offender or in the possession of any other person."** "= Snyder v. P., 26 Mich. 106, 1 Conn. 342, 76 Am. Dec. 602; Davis Green C. R. 549, 12 Am. R. 302; v. S., 52 Ala. 357; P. v. Fairchlld, Roberts v. S., 7 Coldw. 359; S. v. 48 Mich. 31, 11 N. W. 773; Adams Haynes, 66 Me. 307; Com. v. Make- v. S., 62 Ala. 177; May v. S., 85 Ala. ly, 131 Mass. 421; Heard v. S., 81 14, 5 So. 14; Burger v. S., 34 Neb. Ala. 55, 1 So. 640; P. v. De Winton, 397, 51 N. W. 1027; Ritchey v. S., 7 113 Cal. 403, 45 Pac. 708; Rex v. Blackf. (Ind.) 168; Gutzesell v. S. March, 1 Moody 182. Contra, Gar- (Tex. Cr., 1898), 43 S. W. 1016; rett v. S., 109 Ind. 527, 10 N. E. Lipschitz v. P., 25 Colo. 261, 53 Pac. 570; Emig v. Daum, 1 Ind. App. 146, 1111. But see Garrett v. S., 109 27 N. E. 322. Ind. 527, 10 N. E. 570; S. v. Carter, ''S. V. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 47 49 S. C. 265, 27 S. E. 106; Com. v. Am. R. 507, 5 Am. C. R. 71, 3 Pac. Elder, 172 Mass. 187, 51 N. B. 975; 346. See Com. v. Goldstein, 114 4 Bl. Com. 221. Mass. 272. Contra, P. v. Jones, 24 ==P. v. Greening, 102 Cal. 384, 36 Mich. 215. Pac. 665. "Snyder v. P., 26 Mich. 106, 1 == S. v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 28 Green C. R. 547; S. v. Toole, 29 S. E. 255. § 853a ARSON. 237 § 853a. Owner ot public building. — The ownership of jails, court- houses and other public buildings need not be averred in an indict- ment. It is sufficient to say the jail of the county.*' § 854. Stating ownership of house. — An indictment, in alleging the building burned to be the house "of" a person named, sufficiently alleges the ownership of the house.'* § 855. Owner of house. — An indictment alleging that the defend- ant willfully set fire to and burned a cotton-house containing the cotton of a person named, is defective in not also alleging the owner- ship of the house.'° § 856. House of another. — An information failing to allege that the house burned was the house of another than the accused is bad. A person does not commit arson by burning the house occupied by himself.*" § 857. Stating owner of house. — ^An indictment, in charging that the defendant set fire to and burned the dwelling-house of a person named, is sufficient although such person did not occupy the whole pf it. The accused had some of the rooms, and others other rooms, but all the rooms were under the same roof, and were of the same building: Held sufficient.*^ § 858. Dwelling-house. — An indictment charging the burning of a "house used as a dwelling-house," sufficiently alleges a dwelling- house.*^ "Sands v. S., 80 Ala. 201; S. v. 34 Pac. 853; S. v. Tennebom, 92 Johnson, 93 Mo. 73, 5 S. W. 699; Iowa 551, 61 N. W. 193. See Hester Mott V. S., 29 Ark. 147; S. v. Temple, v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 51 S. W. 932 12 Me. 214; Lockett v. S., 63 Ala. (school-house). 5; Stevens v. Com., 4 Leigh (Va.) "S. v. Keena, 63 Conn. 329, 28 683; S. V. Roe, 12 Vt. 93. See S. v. Atl. 522; Martha v. S., 26 Ala. 72; 3 Whitmore, 147 Mo. 78, 47 S. W. Greenl. Bv., § 53; Com. v. Mahar, 1068. 16 Pick. 120; Rex v. Rickman, 2 "'Jordan v. S., 142 Ind. 422, 41 East P. C. 1034. N. E. 817. "Levy v. P., 80 N. Y. 327; S. v. "Smoke v. S., 87 Ala. 143, 6 So. Toole, 29 Conn. 342. 376. See also the following cases: "McLane v. S., 4 Ga. 335; S. v. Martin v. S., 28 Ala. 71; TuUer v. Morgan, 98 N. C. 641, 3 S. E. 927. S., 8 Tex. App. 501; P. v. Myers, 20 See S. v. Frank, 41 La. 596, 7 So. Cal. 76; P. v. Handley, 100 Cal. 370, 131. 238 hughes' criminal law. § 859 § 859. Allegation of residence. — Charging in an indictment that the defendant burned a certain dwelling, describing it, and that the same was occupied by a certain person, naming him, sufficiently alleges that the house was the residence of such occupant.*' § 860. Burning dwelling-house. — ^An indictment alleging the burn- ing of a certain building, that is, a house, does not charge the burning of a dwelling-house under the statute of Massachusetts, but the *Tiouse" is included under a different section for burning "a banking- house, outhouse or other building" of another.** § 861. Allegation of burning. — An indictment charging the de- fendant with the felonious burning of a certain "flouring, grist, and corn mill-house" is sufficient allegation of a "burning."*^ § 862. "Stable" Is building. — A stable is presumed to be a build- ing, and the indictment is sufficient by charging the burning, of a stable, and need not allege the stable to be a building.*® § 863. School-hoase. — ^Under a statute for burning "a townhouse, school-house or other building erected for public use," an indictment alleging the burning of a "school-house," without alleging it was erected for public use, was held sufficient on a motion in arrest of judgment.*^ § 864. Duplicity — ^Two offenses. — The indictment charges that the defendant, on the 6th day of September, 1871, set fire to and burned a stack of hay of the value of three hundred dollars, and on the same day did burn a building used as a stable and granary. The indict- ment is bad as charging two distinct offenses.** «Com. V. Ellison, 14 Ky. L. 216, "Orrell v. P., 94 111. 45S. See 20 S. W. 214; S. v. Johnson, 93 Mo. Dugle v. S., 100 Ind. 259. 73, 5 S. W. 699; Childress v. S., 86 "S. v. Bedell, 65 Vt. 541, 27 Atl. Ala. 77, 5 So. 775; Lewis v. S., 49 208. Miss. 354; McClaine v. Ter., 1 " S. v. Fidment, 35 Iowa 541, 2 Wash. St. 345, 25 Pac. 453; S. v. Green C. R. 633. See Conley v. S., Toole, 29 Conn. 342, 76 Am. Dee. 5 W. Va. 522, 2 Gfeen C. R. 675. 602; Woodford v. P., 62 N. Y. 117, Held not bad for duplicity: S. v. 20 Am. R. 464. Grimes, 50 Minn. 123, 52 N. W. 275; " Com. V. Smith, 151 Mass. 491, Com. v. Allen, 128 Mass. 46, 35 Am. 24 N. E. 677. R. 356; Com. v. Harney, 51 Mass. "Jordan v. S., 142 Ind. 422, 41 422; Early v. Com., 86 Va. 921, 11 N. E. 817, 10 Am. C. R. 32. S. E. 795 ; Beaumont v. S., 1 Tex. §, 865 ARSON. 239 §865. Sevetal burnings, one offense. — The unlawful burning of difleient dwelling-houses of different owners or different buildings of !the same owner at the same time and by the same act, is but a single Koffense, and may be joined in one indictment, in the same or different counts.*® § 866. Malice essential. — If malice is an element of the crime of jarson as defined by statute, the indictment will be fatally defective in failing to allege that the burning was maliciously done ; and the same rule governs if intent be an element of the crime.^" But malice oir intent need not be alleged in the indictment if not an essential ele- ment of the offense.^'^ § 867. Intent essential. — Where it is made arson to set on fire dr 'bum a building with intent to defraud an insurance company, the •indictment must allege the intent to defraud, and that the building was insured against loss by fire.^" It is necessary to aver the guilty intent, that is, that the building was insured against loss by fire, and that the accused set it on fire with the intent to injure the insurer, the intent being an element of the offense.'^ § 868. Value essential. — The penalty being a fine equal in value to the property burned, the indictment should allege the yalue of the property burned.^* § 869. Day or night.^— Where by statute time becomes material in defining the crime of arson, as "in the night time," the indictment will be fatally defective in omitting to allege "in the night time," App. 533, 28 Am. R. 424; S. v. Green, "P. v. Fanshawe, 137 N. Y. 69, 92 N. C. 779; S. v. Jones, 106 Mo. 32 N. E. 1102. 302, 17 S. W. 366. See S. v. Hull, "'^S. v. Porter, 90 N. C. 719; Staad- 83 Iowa 112, 48 N. W. 917; Wash- en v. P., 82 111. 432, 25 Am. R. 333; Ington V. S., 68 Ala. 85; Hoyt v. P., S. v. England, 78 N. C. 552. See also 140 111. 588, 30 N. E. 315. S. v. McCarter, 98 N. C. 637, 4 S. E. "P. V. Fanshawe, 137 N. Y. 68, 553; S. v. Rogers, 94 N. C. 860; S. 32 N. E. 1102; Woodford v. P., 62 v. Phifer, 90 N. C. 721; P. v. Mooney, N. Y. 117, 20 Am. R. 464; Miller v. 127 Cal. 339, 59 Pac. 761. S., 45 Ala. 24; Com. v. Allen, 128 =' Staaden v. P., 82 111. 434; Heard Mass. 46, 35 Am. R. 356; Com. v. v. S., 81 Ala. 55, 1 So. 640, 7 Am. Lamb, 67 Mass. 493; S. v. Ward, 61 C. R. 76; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 522. Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483. See P. v. Henderson, 1 Park. Cr. "Maxwell V. S., 68 Miss. 339, 8 (N. Y.) 560. So. 546; Kellenbeek v. S., 10 Md. " Clark v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 120. 431, 69 Am. Dec. 166; Mott v. S., 29 Ark. 147; S. v. Hill, 55 Me. 365. 240 hughes' criminal law. § 87* otherwise not defective.^" An indictment pursuing the common law' form of indictments for arson, omitting to state whether the burning was in the night time or in the day time, merely alleging that the act was committed on a certain date, is sufiBcient to sustain a convictiofl for arson committed in the day time, but not the night time."" §870. Stating venue. — The indictment alleging that the accused "in the county of Spokane, state of Washington, did then and there burn a certain building," is sufficient statement of the location of the building."' § 871. First and third degrees. — ^Under a statute dividing arson into three degrees and defining each, an indictment charging that the defendant "willfully set fire to or burned, in the night time, a jail in a county named, which was occupied at the time by persons lodged therein," sufiiciently charges arson in the first degree under the statute of Alabama."* In drawing an indictment for arson in the third degree, it is not necessary to negative the aggravating circum- stances essential to constitute arson in the first or second degree, as de- fined by statute."" § 872. Bam containing grain. — Under a statute making it arson "to willfully and unlawfully burn any stable, barn or any house or place where wheat, corn or other grain is usually kept," an indictment charging the burning of "a barn" the property of the owner, is suffi- cient without alleging that wheat, corn or other grain were usually kept in it.°" «S. V. England, 78 Nl C. 552; S. »S. v. Kroscher, 24 Wis. 64; P. v. V. Tennebom, 92 Iowa 551, 61 N. Haynes, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 450; -P. W. 193. See Brightwell v. S., 41 v. Durkin, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) Ga. 482. 243. See also the following cases: "Curran's Case, 7 Gratt. (Va.) S. v. Gregory, 33 La. 737; Hes- 619; Dick v. S., 53 Miss. 384; Cheat- ter v. S., 17 Ga. 130; Com. v. Squire, ham V. S., 59 Ala. 40. 42 Mass. 258; Leonard v. S., 96 Ala. " S. v. Meyers, 9 Wash. 8, 36 Pac. 108, 11 So. 307. See also Com. v. 1051; P. V. Wooley, 44 CaL 494; Com. Hamilton, 81 Mass. 480. V. Barney, 64 Mass. 480; Baker v. ^ Evans v. Com., 11 Ky. L. 573, S., 25 Tex. App. 1, 8 S. W. 23, 8 Am. 12 S. W. 768, 769. Contra, Mulligan St. 427; S. v. Gwinn, 24 S. C. v. S., 25 Tex. App. 199, 7 S. W. 664, 146; S. v. Moore, 24 S. C. 150, 58 8 Am. St. 435; Chapman v. Com., Am. R. 241. See S. v. Wacker, 16 5 Whart. (Pa.) 427, 34 Am. Dec. 565. Mo. App. 417. Contra, Under the common law: S. " Sands v. S., 80 Ala. 201; Cheat- v. Porter, 90 N. C. 719. ham v. S., 59 Ala. 40; S. v. Whit- more, 147 Mo. 78, 47 S. W. 1068. § a73 ARSON. 241 §873. Indictment sufficient. — The indictment, after stating the ^ipie and place, alleged that the defendant, "a certain barn of one B — , there situate, did feloniously, willfully and maliciously burn." Held sufiBcient."^ § 874. Attempt to burn. — An indictment alleging that the de- fendant "did unlawfully, feloniously and willfully attempt to set fire to and burn and destroy a certain frame building commonly called ^ barn," is bad because it fails to allege any act done.*" § 875. "Wantonly and willfully." — ^Under a statute making if a felony to "wantonly and willfully" set fire to certain buildings enu- merated, an indictment alleging that the defendant "feloniously, will- fully, maliciously and unlawfully" set fire to the building, is de- feetive.°* § 876. Allegation of burning. — ^An indictment charging arson with proper averments stating that the defendant "did set fire to" the house in question, is not sufficient. It must allege that he burned the house."* But where the indictment alleges, "did set fire to and burned and destroyed," it is sufiicient.°° Aeticle IV. Evidence; Variance. § 877. Proving ownership. — The ownership of the property ma- liciously burned may be shown by parol evidence on the trial.** § 878. Insurance policy — Secondary evidence. — On a charge of burning a building to obtain the insurance, the defendant having the " Grubb v. S., 14 Wis. 470. See P. 31 S. B. 847. But see the following v. Duford, 66 Mich. 90, 33 N. W. cases: S. v. Thome, 81 N. C. 555; 28; Harbin v. S., 133 Ind. 699, 33 S. v. Price, 37 La. 215; S. v. Philbin, N. B. 635; Ledgerwood V. S., 134Ind. 38 La. 964; Chapman v. Com., 5 81, 33 N. B. 631; Com. v. Elliston, 14 Whar. (Pa.) 427, 34 Am. Dec. 565. Ky. L. 216, 20 S. W. 214; Howard "Bowel v. Com., 5 Gratt. (Va.) V. S., 109 Ga. 137, 34 S. E. 330 664; Mary v. S., 24 Ark. 44, 81 Am. (jail). D. 60; Cochrane v. S., 6 Md. 400- »"Com. V. Peaslee (Mass., 1901), Confra, S. v. Taylor, 45 Me. 322. 59 N. B. 55; Kinningham v. S., 119 "'Lavelle v. S., 136 Ind. 233, 36 N. Ind. 332, 21 N. B. 911. See S. v. E. 135. See also P. v. Myers, 20 CaL Johnson, 19 Iowa 230. But see con- 76. tra, P. V. Giacamella, 71 Cal. 48, 12 "'Rogers v. S., 26 Tex. App. 404,. Pae. 302. 9 S. W. 762; S. v. Jaynes, 78 N. C- "S. V. Morgan, 98 N. C. 641, 3 S. 504; S. v. Elder, 21 La. 157; Com. v. E. 927; S. v. Pierce, 123 N. C. 745, Wesley, 168 Mass. 248, 44 N. B. 228, hughes' c. l. — 16 242 hughes' criminal law. § 879 insurance policy and refusing to produce it, secondary evidence is competent, and an agent of the insurer may testify to the execution and delivery of the policy and the contents of it.*' § 879. Proof of insurance company. — Proof of the legal existence of an insurance company is not required on a charge of arson with intent to defraud the company.*' § 880. Evidence of corpus delicti. — When the general fact of burn- ing has been shown by circumstances excluding accident or natural causes as the origin of the fire, then the foundation is laid for the in- troduction of any legal and sufficient evidence that the act was com- mitted by the accused with criminal intent."* In arson the corpus •delicti consists not only of the fact that a building has been burned, .but also of the fact that it has been willfully fired by some responsible person.''° § 881. Endangering other building. — On a charge of burning a building not inhabited, adjoining one inhabited, whereby the latter ivas endangered, evidence that the fire actually burned the inhabited building is competent to prove that it was "endangered."'^ § 882. Motive, not indispensable. — Motive is not an indispensable element of the crime of arson, where the offense sufficiently appears in all other respects; whether the motive be gain or revenge is not material.'^ § 883. Motive pecuniary. — ^Where the motive for burning the building is pecuniary, as profitable collection of insurance, see the following cases in the margin.'' The intent to defraud the insurer "Knights V. S., 58 Neb. 225, 78 "S. v. Grimes, 50 Minn. 123, 52 ISf. W. 508. N. W. 275. "S. V. Tucker, 84 Mo. 23; P. v. "P. v. Fong Hong, 120 Cal. 6SS, Hughes, 29 Cal. 257; P. v. Schwartz, 53 Pae. 265. See Gillett Indirect & 32 Cal. 160; Evans v. S., 24 Ohio St. Col. Ev., § 59. 458; S. V. Byrne, 45 Conn. 273. " S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. <" Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. 483; P. v. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 22 Pao. B. 244; Sam v. S., 33 Miss. 347; 969, 24 Pac. 631; P. v. O'Neill, 112 Phillips V. S., 29 Ga. 105. N. Y. 355, 19 N. E. 796; Com. v. " Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42; S. v. Wat- E. 244, 9 Am. C. R. 62; Winslow v. son, 63 Me. 128; Freund v. P., 5 S., 76 Ala. 42; S. v. Millmeier, 102 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 198; Stitz v. S., Iowa 692, 72 N. W. 275. See Brown 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. B. 145; P. v. Scott, V. Com., 89 Va. 379, 16 S. E. 250, 10 Utah 217, 37 Pac. 335; S. v. Cohn, holding that the evidence was not 9 Nev. 179; Com. v. Hudson, 97 Mass. sufficient to establish the corpus 565. delicti: Jenkins v. S., 53 Ga. 33. ^ 884 ARSON. 243 may be inferred from the fact that the owner of an insured building burned it.''* § 884. Intent — Shown by circumstantial evidence. — The criminal intent in arson, the same as in other criminal offenses, may be estab- lished by circumstantial evidence; as, if a person is charged with burning his own house, the fact that the house was heavily insured, or that on some previous occasion the same house had been burned, may be shown in evidence as tending to prove motive. ''° § 885. Threats — 111 feeling. — Previous threats and ill feeling of the defendant toward the owner of the property burned, and his declaration that "no man should prosper on the place," are competent as tending to show malice and intent.''" For cases illustrating the rule that ill feeling of the defendant toward the owner of the building burned and his desire for revenge are competent in evidence, see the following cases in the margin.''^ Evidence of ill feeling toward the owner and of opportunity to commit the crime of arson, alone, will not warrant a conviction of the accused.'* § 886. Defendant's previous threats. — Evidence of previous at- tempts or threats by the defendant to burn the building in question, though remote, are competent as tending to prove his guilt.''' It may be shown in evidence that the accused had threatened the owner of a "P. V. Vasalo, 120 Cal. 168, 52 Pac. 889; S. v. Millmeier, 102 Iowa 692, 305. 72 N. W. 275; S. v. Hallock, 70 Vt. " Stitz V. S., 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. E. 159, 40 Atl. 51. 145; P. V. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 22 Pac. "S. v. "Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 969; Com. v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42; 483; Com. v. Quinn, 150 Mass. 401, S. V. Cohn, 9 Nev. 179; Melster v. P., 23 N. E. 54; S. v. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 31 Mich. 99; S. v. Vatter, 71 Iowa 7 Atl. 129; Oliver v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 557, 32 N. W. 506. See also Halleck 541, 28 S. W. 202; Prater v. S., 107 V. S., 65 Wis. 147, 26 N. W. 572; S. Ala. 26, 18 So. 238; S. v. Thompson, V. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 238; S. v. Craw- 97 N. C. 496, 1 S. E. 921. ford, 99 Mo. 74, 12 S. W. 354; S. v. "Garner v. Com. (Va.), 26 S. E. Roberts, 15 Or. 187, 13 Pac. 896; 507. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 370. ™ Hinds v. S., 55 Ala. 145; P. v. '°P. V. Eaton, 59 Mich. 559, 26 N. Lattimore, 86 Cal. 403, 24 Pac. 1091; W. 702; Morris v. S., 124 Ala. 44, 27 Com. v. Crowe, 165 Mass. 139, 42 So. 336; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 368, N. E. 563; S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, citing S. v. Lytle, 117 N. C. 799, 23 17 Atl. 483; S. v. Rhodes, 111 N. C. S. B. 476; Prater v. S., 107 Ala. 26, 647, 15 S. B. 1038; S. v. Crawford, 99 18 So. 238; Ford v. S., 112 Ind. 373, Mo. 74, 12 S. W. 354; Winslow v. S., 383, 14 N. E. 241; S. v. Crawford, 99 76 Ala. 42; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 368, Mo. 74, 79, 12 S. W. 354; Com. v. citing Com. v. Quinn, 150 Mass. 401, Wesley, 166 Mass. 248, 44 N. E. 228; 23 N. E. 54; S. v. Penlason, 78 Me. Johnson v. S., 89 Ga. 107, 14 S. E. 495, 7 Atl. 385. 244 hughes' criminal law. § 887 house adja,eent to that which was burned, or that a person, though not the owner of the house, had goods stored in it.*" § 887. Burning other buildings. — ^Evidence of the burning of other hnildings about the same time in the same locality, is competent ag tending to prove the burning charged in the indictment where the different acts appear to have been connected as one transaction ; as, for example, on a charge of "setting fire to an outhouse used as a kitchen,'? evidence of an attempt to burn a dwelling-house about the same hour about fifteen yards off; that both houses were saturated with kerosene; that fagots of wood tied with a rope belonging to the defendant had been used in the attempt. Held competent as tending to prove the charge in the indictnient.'^ But the general rule is, such evidence is not competent unless some connection can be shown tending to make all one transaction.*^ § 888. Burning other buildings — ^Incompetent. — Evidence of the burning of other buildings in the vicinity at or about the same time as the one charged in the indictment, is not competent unless there is evidence connecting the defendant with such other burning.** § 889. Incompetent evidence. — On the trial of a charge for burn- ing a "barn," evidence of the burning of the contents of the barn is incompetent and erroneous where there is no dispute that the barn was a "building."** § 890. Origin of fire. — On the trial on a charge of arson the evi- dence tended to show that the fire started in a shed in which was kept a gasoline stove. It is competent for the accused to show that the stove leaked and had previously caught fire.*^ «■ Underbill Cr. Ev., § 368, citing 481. 19 S. E. 134; P. v. Cassidy, 60 Bond V. Com., 83 Va. 581, 3 S. E. Hun 579, 14 N. Y. Supp. 349; S. v. 149; S. V. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 7 Atl. Raymond, 53 N. J. L. 260, 21 Atl. 129. 328. »iS. V. Thompson, 97 N. C. 496, »=Com. v. Gauvin, 143 Mass. 134, 1 S. E. 921; Wright v. P., 1 N. Y. 8 N. E. 895. Cr. 462. See Com. v. Choate, 105 " Simpson v. S., Ill Ala. 6, 20 So. Mass. 451; P. v. Smith, 55 N. Y. 572. See also Hamilton v. P., 29 Supp. 932, 37 App. Div. 280; P. v. Mich. 173. Hiltel (Cal., 1901), 63 Pac. 919. »= S. v. Delaney, 92 Iowa 467, 61 "^Com. v. Gauvin, 143 Mass. 134, N. W. 189. 8 N. E. 895; S. v. Dukes, 40 S. C. § 891 ARSON. 245 § 891. Identifying accused. — Evidence was introduced tending to «how that the defendant, with a jug in her hand, approached the building alleged to have been burned by her ; that she poured oil out ■of the jug and set it on fire. Other evidence was introduced showing that the jug had formerly been in possession of her husband. Held •competent as tending to identify the defendant.*® § 892. Sufllciency of facts. — The facts and circumstances in the following arson cases sustain convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.*^ !feut in the following cases the facts and circumstances were held not sufficient to warrant convictions.** § 893. Variance.— Proof of burning a "crib with corn in it" will not support an allegaitioh of burning a "barn with grain or corn in it."*» § 894. Verdibt, sufficiency. — Under an indictment containing one count charging every essential fact necessary to constitute arson in the first degree, a verdict of guilty fixing the punishment at ten years in the penitentiary, without stating the degree, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.®" »° Thomas v. S., 107 Ala. 13, 18 So. 524, 156 N. Y. 253, 50 N. E. 846; 229. See Halleck v. S., 65 Wis. 147, Meeks v. S., 103 Ga. 420, 30 S. B. 26 N. W. 672; Morris v. S., 124 Ala. 252. 44, 27 So. 336; Ethridge v. S., 124 «» Brown v. Com., 87 Va. 215, 12 Ala. 106, 27 So. 320 (tracks). S. E. 472; Com. v. Phillips, 12 Ky. L. "Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. 410, 14 S. W. 378; Tullis v. S., 41 E. 244, 41 Am. St. 346; Whitfield Tex. 598; Anderson v. Com., 83 Va. T. S., 25 Fla. 289, 5 So. 805; Johnson 326, 2 S. E. 281; Luker v. S. (Miss.), V. S., 89 Ga. 107, 14 S. B. 889; P. v. 14 So. 259; Green v. S., 110 Ga. 270, Burridge, 99 Mich. 343, 58 N. W. 34 S. B. 563; Boatwright v. S., 103 319; P. V. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 22 Pac. Ga. 430, 30 S. E. 256; Strong v. S. 969, 24 Pac. 631; Bluman v. S., 33 (Miss.), 23 So. 392; P. v. Jones, 123 Tex. Cr. 43, 21 S. W. 1027, 26 S. W. Cal. 65, 55 Pac. 698; Landers v. S., 75; S. V. Tennehom, 92 Iowa 551, 39 Tex. Cr. 671, 47 S. W. 1008. 61 N. W. 193; Brooks v. S., 51 Ga. "S. v. Laughlin, 53 N. C. 354; €12; Ross v. S., 109 Ga. 516, 35 S. B. Thomas v. S., 116 Ala. 461, 22 So. 102; Allen v. S., 91 Ga. 189, 16 S. B. 666. As to burning a house, see Com. 980; S. v. Burgor, 94 Iowa 33, 62 N. v. Smith, 151 Mass. 491, 24 N. E. W. 696; Ethridge v. S., 124 Ala. 106, 677. See also S. v. Roper, 88 N. C. 27 So. 320; S. v. Shines, 125 N. C. 656; S. v. Atkinson, 88 Wis. 1, 58 730, 34 S. B. 552; P. v. Hiltel (Cal., N. W. 1034. 1901), 63 Pac. 919; P. v. Fitzgerald, "'Davis v. S., 52 Ala. 357; Dick 46 N. Y. Supp. 1020, 12 N. Y. Cr. R. v. S., 53 Miss. 384. CHAPTER XV. FOEGEET. Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 896-920 SuBDiv. 1. Uttering Defined, §§ 896-908 2. ' Instrument Effective, §§ 909-914 3. Persons Defrauded, §§ 915-920 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 921-937 SuBDiv. 1. When no Defense, §§ 921-924 2. When Defense, §§ 925-930 3. Instruments Void, §§ 931-937 III. Indictment, §§ 938-963 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 964^988 V. Venue; Jurisdiction, §§ 989-991 Aeticle I. Defistition and Elements. Subdivision 1. — Uttering Defined. § 896. Forgery defined. — Forgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another's rights.^ By the statutory definition of forgery of the state of Washington, the utter- ing or publishing of a forged draft constitutes forgery.^ § 897. Alteration is forgery. — A material alteration in part of a genuine instrument, whereby a new operation is given it, is a forgery of the whole, if done with intent to defraud.^ '4 Bl. Com. 247; U. S. v. Long, is and what is not forgery, and also- 30 Fed. 678; S. v. Flye, 26 Me. 312; what instruments may be the sub- 3 Greenl. Bv., § 103; S. v. Hose, 70 ject of forgery, may be found at the Minn. 403, 73 N. W. 177; Underbill end of the case of S. v. Hilton, 35 Cr. Ev., § 419. Kan. 338, 11 Pac. 164, 8 Am. C. R. ' S. v. Harding, 20 Wash. 556, 56 273, note. Pac. 399, 929. An exhaustive note = S. v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541; S. v. citing many authorities as to what Kattlemann, 35 Mo. 105; Owen v. (246) § 898 FORGERY. 247 § 898. Nature of forgery. — The nature of a forgery in writing or changing a document consists in endeavoring to give an appearance of truth to a mere deceit and falsity, to make it appear that a man did an act, when in fact he did not, or that a person did some act at a time when it was not done, with the intention of defrauding.* § 899. Changing date. — ^When an instrument professes to be exe- cuted at a date different from that at which it really was executed, and the false date is material to the operation of the deed, if the false date is inserted knowingly and with a fraudulent intent, it is a forgery at common law, such as a false date in a telegram." § 900. Indorsing same name. — If the accused have the same name as the payee and write his name on the back of the draft, it is forgery.* § 901. Fictitious name. — Forgery may be committed by the false making of a written instrument in the name of a fictitious person.'' § 902. Forgery of deed. — The signing of the name of another to a deed, feloniously, with intent to defraud, completes the offense of forgery, without acknowledgment or delivery of the deed.^ § 903. Public documents. — Forging of public documents is pun- ishable, such as forging the certificate of a county judge to requisition papers, or the forging of a witness' certificate.^ § 904. Aiding and abetting. — It is not necessary, in order to charge the defendant with forging the instrument, that he should have actu- Brown, 70 Vt. 521, 41 Atl. 1025; P. Warner, 104 Mich. 337, 62 N. W. V. Underhill, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1030, 405; S. v. Minton, 116 Mo. 605, 22 75 Hun 329, 142 N. Y. 38, 36 N. E. S. W. 808; Ex parte Hibbs, 26 Fed. 1049; Com. v. Hide, 94 Ky. 517, 15 421; Scott v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 105, 48 Ky. L. 264, 23 S. W. 195; 2 McClain S. W. 523; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), Cr. L., § 765; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. § 109; Johnson v. S., 85 Tex. Cr. 271, ed.), § 104; 2 Bast P.O. 861; 1 Hawk. 33 S. W. 231; Lacelles v. S., 90 Ga. P. C, ch. 70, § 2. 347, 16 S. E. 945; Underhill Cr. Ev., *S. V. Redstrake, 39 N. J. L. 365, § 427; Hanks v. S (Tex. Cr. Ap., 3 Am. C. R. 129. ■ 1899), 54 S. W. 587. 'Reg. V. Ritson, L. R. 1 C. C. 200; » S. v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. Queen v. Riley, L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 1076; Lassiter v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 540, D. 309, 10 Am. C. R. 406 (telegram) ; 34 S. W. 751. See Caffey v. S., 36 Owen V. Brown, 70 Vt. 521, 41 Atl. Tex. Cr. 198, 36 S. W. 82; P. v. 1025. Baker, 100 Cal. 188, 34 Pac. 649. "1 Whar. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 657; But see Johnson v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. Barfleld v. S., 29 Ga. 127; U. S. v. 605, 51 S. W. 382. Long, 30 Fed. 678; P. v. Peacock, 6 "Langdon v. P., 133 111. 388, 24 Cow. 72; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 103. N. B. 874; S. v. Bullock, 54 S. C. 300, 'Thompson v. S., 49 Ala. 16; P. v. 32 S. B. 424. 248 hughes' criminal tAw. § 905 ally participated ia uttering and passing the same. It is snfBeient if he forged the paper, or aided or assisted in its forgery, with the intent that it should be uttered as true and genuine.^" § 905. Procuring another. — The defendant by false representa- tions induced the daughter to sign her father's name to a promissory note ; the daughter was innocent of any wrongful conduct in doing so, ehe having previously executed a similar instrument under her father's directions. Held that the defendant was guilty of f orgery.^^ § 906. Tittering is offering. — To constitute an uttering it is not necessary that the forged instrument should have been actually re- ceived as genuine by the person upon whom the attempt to defraud is made. To utter a thing is to offer it, whether it be taken or not.^^ § 907, irttering deed. — If one procures a forged deed to be record- ed or undertakes to raise money upon it, he will be guilty of uttering, if done so with intent to defraud.^* § 908. irttering not included.^ — A statute which defines the offense of forgery in the fourth degree to be the having in one's possession, buying or receiving a forged instrument knowing it to be forged, with intent to injure and defraud, by uttering it as true and genuine, does not include the offense of actually uttering the instrument as true and genuine.^* Subdivision 2. — Instrument Effective. § 909. Instrument must be effective. — The instrument alleged to be forged must be such an instrument as, if genuine, would be ef- fective,^^ or would effect the transfer of property.^°* >»Roscoe Cr. Ev., 566; Whar. Cr. "P. v. Dane, 79 Mich. 361, 44 N. X.. (8th ed.), §§ 1446, 1452; 2 Bish. W. 617; U. S. v. Brooks, 3 Mac- Cr. L., § 598; Anson v. P., 148 111. Arthur 315; P. v. Baker, 100 Cal. 494, 502, 35 N. E. 145. See Greenl. 188, 34 Pac. G49. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 104; Koch v. S., "S. v. IVIills, 146 Mo. 195, 47 S. W. 115 Ala. 99, 22 So. 471. 938. ^Gregory v. S., 26 Ohio St. 510. « Brown v. P., 86 111. 241; Water- "P. V. Caton, 25 Mich. 388; Rex man v. P., 67 111. 93, 1 Am. C. R. T. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 582; 3 225; Hendricks v. S., 26 Tex. App. Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 110; 176, 9 S. W. 555, 557, 8 Am. C. R. 281. Espalla V. S., 108 Ala. 38, 19 So. 82; "^Noakes v. P., 25 N. Y. 380; Com. P. v. Tomllnson, 35 Cal. 503; Com. v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 11 Ky. L. -V. Hall, 4 Allen (Mass.) 305; Mc- 375, 12 S. W. 264; S. v. Evans, 15 Gregor v. S., 16 Ind. 9. Mont. 539, 39 Pac. 850; P. v. Shall, § 910 roEGEKY. 249 § 910. Instrument, order. — The instrument alleged to be forged is as follows: "La Grange, June 19, 1881. Mr. Allen: Please let A. Garmire have team to go to Mongo, and charge same to me." It comes within the provisions of the statute defining forgery.^* § 911. Draft, cheek, bill of exchange, order. — A draft made pay^ able to the bearer is included in an order for the payment of money, within the meaning of the statute.^'' A "bill of exchange" is com- prehensive enough to include a check drawn upon a bank.^^ § 912. Contract, not bill or note. — A statute against uttering or passing any fictitious bill, note or cheek or other instrument of writing for the payment of money or property, does not include a contract for the purchase of a marble monument.^" § 913. Warehouse receipts, not notes. — Warehouse receipts are not included in promissory notes, bonds, due bills, or other instruments in writing as respects the title, in case of an assignment.^" § 914. Crucible is not tool. — The words "instrument" and "tool," being considered as generic terms, will not include the word "cruci^- ble" as one of their family within the meaning of the criminal law.^^ Subdivision S. — Persons Defrauded. § 915, Persons defrauded. — The prosecution is not required to prove that the defendant participated in the intent to defraud the particular person named in the indictment. It is sufficient if he forged the paper or aided or assisted in its forgery with intent that it should be uttered as true and genuine.^^ It is no defense to a 9 Cow. 778; Barnum v. S., 15 Ohio "Hawthorn v. S., 56 Md. 530; 2 717; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 103; S. v. Van McClain Cr. L., § 752. Coratm, Town- Aukeri, 98 Iowa 674, 68 N. W. 454. send v. S., 92 Ga. 732, 19 S. E. 55; ""Garmire v. S., 104 Ind. 444, 4 Canadian Bank v. McCrea, 106 111. N. B. 54, 5 Am. C. R. 238; Com. v. 289. Fisher; 17 Mass. 46; Anderson v. S., " Shirk v. P., 121 111. 66, 11 N. E.- 65 Ala. 553; S. v. Keeter, 80 N. C. 888. 472; S. V. Morgan, 35 La. 293; Peete ^"Canadian Bank v. McCrea. 106 V. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 513. 111. 289. " P. V. Brigham, 2 Mich. 550; S. ^ S. v. Bowman, 6 Vt. 594. V. Lee, 32 Kan. 360, 4 Pac. 653; P. v. ^ Anson v. P., 148 111. 502, 35 N. Howell, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 296. See E. 145; Roscoe Cr. Ev., 566; 2 Bish. P. V. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410, 43 N. W. Cr. L., § 598; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 18. 439; S. V. Brett, 16 Mont. 360. 40 Pac. 873. 250 hughes' criminal law. § 916 charge of forgery that the person to whom the forged instruineiit was delivered was not defrauded. The crime is complete if the defendant intends him to be defrauded.^* § 916. Person defrauded. — If the writing purports to be an order which the party has a right to make, although in truth he had no such right, and although no such person existed in fact as the order pur- ports to be made by, it falls within the penalty of the act. It is not essential that the person in whose name it purports to be made should have the legal capacity to make it.''* § 917. Intent, knowledge essential. — The intent to defraud in the forging of an instrument, or the knowledge that it is a forgery, is an essential element, and must be alleged in the indictment and proven on the trial.^^ In a prosecution for having possession of or passing counterfeit money, it must appear that the defendant knew of the spurious character of the money.^' § 918. Instrument sufficient. — The following instrument is not in- complete or meaningless : "Mr. Gladstone please let Bare Have the sume of 5 Dollars in Grosses and charge the same to Dr. F. T. Cooke." It is the subject of forgery without the averment of extrinsic faets.^' The instrument alleged to be forged reads as follows : "Akron, May ■2, 1874. Mr. Schroeder: Please let Mr. Bosswick have his clothes, and I will hold his pay till next Tuesday, and will see that paid for." This instrument is an order for the delivery of goods and chattels within the meaning of the statute.^* '^^ Benson v. S., 124 Ala. 92, 26 "Hendricks v. S., 26 Tex. App. So. 119. 176, 9 S. W. 555, 557, 8 Am. C. R. "S. V. Eades, 68 Mo. 150, 3 Am. 279; Lee v. S., 118 Ala. 672, 23 So. C. R. 124; P. V. Stearns, 21 Wend. 669. See S. v. Coyle, 41 Wis. 267, 2 (N. y.) 409; Clinch's Case, 2 East Am. C. R. 150. P. C. 938. ^ Chidester v. S., 25 Ohio St. 433, ==P. V. Smith, 103 Cal. 563, 37 Pac. 2 Am. C. R. 154; P. v. Phillips, 118 516; Gates v. S., 71 Miss. 874, 16 So. Mich. 699, 77 N. W. 245; LampWn 342; Powers v. S., 87 Ind. 97; S. v. v. S., 105 Ala. 1, 16 So. 575; Glenn Williams, 66 Iowa 573, 24 N. W. 52; v. S., 116 Ala. 483, 23 So. 1; Morearty U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611. v. S., 46 Neb. 652, 65 N. W. 784; ^ Pigman v. S., 14 Ohio 555, 45 Elkins v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 207, 32 S. Am. D. 558; Brown v. P., 9 111. 439; W. 1047; 3 Greenl. Bv. (Redf. ed.), Hopkins v. Com., 3 Mete. (Mass.) § 103. 464; U. S. v. Roudenbush, 1 Baldw. (U. S.) 514. § 919 FORGEKY. 251 § 919. Character of instrument immaterial. — It is not material whether the instrument does or does not possess the legal requisites of a bill of exchange or an order for the payment of money. The particular name or character of the instrument is of no consequence. The question is whether it will have the effect to deceive and de- fraud.^' § 920. Check not stamped. — The fact that the check alleged to be forged was not stamped under the act of congress was not material, and is no defense.^" Article II. Matters of Defense. ' Subdivision 1. — When no Defense. § 921. Alteration plain to be seen. — If a person alters an instru- ment with intent to defraud, it can not avail him as a defense that the alterations were plain to be seen, and that no special attempt was made to conceal the alterations.^^ § 922. Defrauded person indebted to defendant. — It is no defense to a charge of forgery that the person whose name was forged was indebted to the defendant. The fact of such indebtedness would not authorize the defendant to sign the name of such persbn.^^ § 923. Witness' certificate. — The fact that the statute makes no provision and prescribes no form for a witness' certificate is no defense to an indictment charging the defendant with the forgery of such a certificate.'^ § 924. Forgery or false pretense. — Where the evidence shows that the accused obtained the signature of his daughter to the forged in- strument, intending to falsely use it as that of his wife, he will be '°S. v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150, 3 Am. »'Rohr v. S., 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 C. R. 124; P. v. Krummer, 4 Park. Atl. 673. Cr. (N. Y.) 217. '■' Curtis v. S., 118 Ala. 125, 24 So. »° Cross V. P., 47 111. 155; Laird v. 111. S., 61 Md. 309; P. v. Frank, 28 Cal. »^ S. v. Bullock, 54 S. C. 300, 32 S. 507. See Com. v. McKean, 98 Mass. E. 424. 9; Miller v. P., 52 N. Y. 304. 252 hughes' criminal law. §925 guilty of forgery, though the testimony may also support a charge of false pretense.'* Subdivision 2. — When Defense. § 925. Mere possession no offense. — Merely having possession of counterfeit coins or instruments by which the same are made is not an offense at common law.'° But having possession of counterfeit coins with intent to pass the same, or having possession of instrument* with intent to make such coins, is by statute a criminal offense.^" § 926. Mere delivery no offense. — ^Merely delivering a forged in- strument to another, knowing it to be a forgery, with intent to have it-uttered or passed as a genuine instrument, is not sufficient to con- stitute forgery, under a statute making it forgery to attempt to pass a forged instrument as true and genuine with intent to cheat or injure another.''' § 927. Intent — ^Possession alone not sufftcient. — The mere making and possession of a forged instrument do not necessarily prove an intent to defraud. Such making and possession is evidence, it is true, but it can not be said, as a legal proposition, that it proves a fraudu- lent intent.'* § 928. No deception, no offense. — Where the defendant made a note and without authority signed the names of several persons to it, and appended to it the following: "I was authorized to sign the above note," held not to be forgery, even though he was not author- ized to sign the names to the note." § 929. Passing, when complete. — The act of passing is not com- plete until the instrument is received by the person to whom it is " S. V. Farrell, 82 Iowa 553, 48 N. " P. v. Compton, 123 Cal. 403, S6 W. 940; Reg. v. Inder, 2 C. & K. Pac. 44. See Miller v. S., 51 Inct 635. 405. '"Dugdale v. Reg., 1 El. & Bl. 435; ^Pox v. P., 95 111. 76; Miller v. Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burr. 1127; U. S. S., 51 Ind. 405; 2 McClain Cr. L., V. Wright, 2 Cranch 68; Rex v. § 767; Kotter v. P., 150 111. 441, 37 Heath, R. & R. C. C. 184. N. E. 932. But see S. v. Williams, »° Miller v. P., 3 111. 233; Bell v. S., 152 Mo. 115, 53 S. W. 424. 10 Ark. 536; S. v. Griffin, 18 Vt. 178; ™ S. v. Taylor, 46 La. 1332, 16 So. P. V. White, 34 Cal. 183; Peoples v. 190. S., 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 95; S. v. Myers, 10 Iowa 448. 5 930 FORGERY. 253 offered. Declaring the instrument to be good with the intention or attempt to pass it is "uttering."*" § 930. When not uttering. — The defendant, by placing a forged i}(^ in a bank for collection which he had received from the person who forged it, knowing it to be forged, i,8 not guilty of uttering with ijiitent IjO defraud, where the person whose name was forged was the fether of the forger, and where the defendant knew at the time of attempting to sp collect that the father had learned his son had com- igjtted such forgery.*^ Subdivision 3. — Instr'nments Void, §931. Instrument void. — An instrument absolutely void on its fa^ce, and which could work no injury to the person for whom it was obtained, can not be made the subject of forgery, if genuine.*^ § 932. Instrument not basis of forgery. — An instrument not being Qr purporting to be a record, no indictment for forging it can be based on it.** A fictitious letter purporting to have been written by tlie superintendent of a railroad company, introducing the bearer, agkiijig courtesies and stating that the bearer had been in the employ of the company, is not the subject of forgery.** § 933. Order void. — The defendant was indicted for forging the following instrument: "Savannah, Ga., May 24, 1873. Central Bailroad and Banking Co., pay to the order of three hundred and sixty dollars. J. Lamer." The check, not being payable to bearer or to the order of any person, could not have defrauded the bank or any person.*^ § 934. Certificate void. — A certificate issued by a clerk of a court certifying that a juror had attended court a certain number of days, "3 Greenl. Ev., § 110; U. .S.v. « Brown v. P., 86 111. 242; Under- Mitchell, Baldw. (U. S.) 366. hill Cr. Ev., § 431. " S. v. Redstrake, 39 N. J. L. 365, "Waterman v. P., 67 111. 92; P. v. 3 Am. C. R. 131. Wong Sam, 117 Cal. 29, 48 Pac. "Roods V. S., 5 Neb. 174; Brown 972; 2 McClaln Cr. L., § 756; P. v. V. P., 86 111. 239; S. v. Pierce, 8 Tomlinson, 35 Cal. 503. Iowa 231; S. v. Young, 46 N. H. 266; "Williams v. S., 51 Ga. 535, 1 Am. Reed v. S., 28 Ind. 396; Rex v. M'ln- C. R. 227; Moore v. S., 13 Ohio C. C. tosh, 2 East P. C. 942; Terry v. Com., 10, 7 Ohio C. D. 70; P. v. Galloway, 87 Va. 672, 13 S. B. 104; 3 Greenl. 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 540. Ev., § 103. See King v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 845. 254 hughes' criminal law. § 935 entitling him to payment for such attendance, not being authorized by law, is void, and can not be the basis of forgery.*" ^ § 935. Instrument void. — If the instrument alleged to have been forged is so imperfect and incomplete that no one could be defrauded by it, a conviction can not be had on it.*' To make falsely an in- strument which upon its face is clearly void is not forgery, because from its character it could not have operated to defraud; but it is forgery to make falsely an instrument with intent to defraud, al- though, if it had been genuine, other steps must have been taken to complete the instrument.*' An instrument not executed or signed hj anybody is not an obligation; it is merely a blank piece of paper, and, therefore, is not such an instrument as the statute defining for- gery contemplates.*' Passing as genuine a bank bill of another state which has no legal value in Illinois and, under the law, purports to have none, is not a violation of the statute of Illinois defining for- gery.^" § 936. Document not subject of forgery. — ^A document not in- tended to pass'or create any interest, or give any title to anything, but merely -to certify that a certain ceremony had been performed admit- ting a certain person into the holy order of deacon according to the rites and ceremonies' of a church, is not the subject of forgery.^^ §837. Trade-marks,' not forgery .^^Trade-marks and labels are not the subject of .forgery at common law. Forgery .at common law is the false making or materially altering of any writing with intent to defraud, whiehiif genuine might apparently be of legal efficacy or a foundation of legal liability.^^ Article III. Indictment. § 938. Statutory words sufficient.-^Where the indictment alleged the forging or altering of the collector's book, stating the ofEense in the language of the statute, it was held sufficient.^* "Ter. v. Delana, 3 Okla. 573, 41 894; S. v. Wingard, 40 La. 738, 5 Pac. 618. See S. v. Gee, 28 Or. 100, So. 54. 42 Pac. 7. •" Xr; S, rv. Sprague, 48 Fed. 828. "P. V. Galloway, 17 Wend. (N.T,') ""-Gutcnins v. P., 21 111. 641, 644; 540; "Williams v. S., 51 Ga. 635, 1 2 McCTain Cr. L., § 774. Am. C. R. 227. ""Reg. v. Morton, 12 Cox C. C. " P. V. Blbby, 91 Cal. 470, 474, 27 456, 1 Green C. R. 135. Pac. 781; Com. v. Costeiro, 120 Mass. "^ White v. Wagar, 185 111. 195, 204, 367; Snell v. S., 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 57 N. B. 26, 50 L. R. A. 60. 347; Smith v. S., 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. '"Loehr v. P., 132 111. 507, 24 N. E. § 939 FORGERY. 255 § 939. Alleging alteration. — The indictment, in alleging forgery by altering the instrument alleged to have been forged, must set ont in what the alteration consisted ; otherwise it will be defective.''* § 940. Description of forged instrument. — If the indictment charg- ing forgery describes the forged instrument as it was at the time it is claimed the forgery was committed, it is sufficient although other additions or alterations may afterwards appear on the instrument.^^ ^ 941. Setting out instrument unnecessary. — While it is not neces- sary to set out in the indictment the forged instrument, yet when the pleader attempts to set it out in hoc verba, he is bound to set out each and every part of the written instrumiCnt which constituted any part of the contract, and a failure to do so might be fatal.^^ But the num- ber of the document and figures in the margin stating the amount are no parts of the document, and need not be set out in the indict- ment, nor need indorsements be alleged.^^ § 942. Instrument, in foreign language. — ^Where the forged in- strument is in a foreign language it is the better pleading to set out the instrument in the language in which it is written, but it is not indispensable that this should be done. A translation is sufficient.^* § 943. Stating how defrauded. — How and in what manner the party was to be defrauded is no ingredient of the crime, but is mere matter of evidence, and need not be set out in the indictment or in- 68. See Com. V. Bachop, 2 Pa. Sup. Ohio 268; S. v. Atkins, 5 Blackf. Ct. 294; Eldridge v. Com., 21 Ky. L. (Ind.) 458; S. v. Johnson, 26 Iowa 1088, 54 S. W. 7. 40.7; Davis v. S., 58 Neb. 465, 78 N. "Kahn v. S., 58 Ind. 168; S. v. W. 930; Pierce v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 604, Fisher, 58 Mo. 256; S. v. Weaver, 13 44 S. W. 292; Hill v. Com., 17 Ky. Ired. (N. C.) 491. See S. v. Van L. 1135, 33 S. W. 823. Auken, 98 Iowa 674, 68 N. W. 454. "Langdale v. P., 100 111. 268; ■» Sampson v. P., 188 111. 592, 59 Cross v. P., 47 111. 157; Trask v. P., N. B. 427; Miller v. P., 52 N. Y. 151 111. 528, 38 N. B. 248; Com. v. 304. Ward, 2 Mass. 397; Hennessy v. "'Trask v. P., 151 111. 528, 38 N. S., 23 Tex. App. 340, 5 S. W. 215; E. 248; Langdale v. P., 100 111. 268; S. v. Jackson, 90 Mo. 156, 2 S. W. Griffin v. S., 14 Ohio St. 55; Com. v. 128; Miller v. P., 52 N. Y. 304; S. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 605; S. v. Ridge, 125 N. C. 655, 34 S. B. 439; Carr, 5 N. H. 367; S. v. Gaubert, 49. Lovejoy v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 89, 48 S. La. 1692, 22 So. 930; S. v. Pleshman, W. 520. 40 W. Va. 726, 22 S. B. 309; S. v. "'P. v. Ah Woo, 28 Cal. 205. See Childers, 32 Or. 119, 49 Pac. 801. Duffin v. P., 107 111. 113; P. v. Ben- Contra, S. v. Davis, 69 N. C. 313, 1 nett, 122 Mich. 281, 81 N. W. 117. Green C. R. 540; McMillen v. S., 5 256 hughes' ckiminal law. § 944 formation, on which all the authorities agree."* To constitute a good indictment, the defendant must he charged with not only the fraudu- lent use of the instrument in counterfeiting, but also the manner in which it was used.*" § 944. Indictment stating facts. — ^It is not necessary to allege in the indictment every fact the existence of which is assumed in tlag forged instrument, where the instrument on its face is a valid one."' § 945. Extrinsic averments necessary. — When the instrument is imperfect and its meaning and terms standing alone not intelligible from its words and figures, as "Due, 8.25, Askew Brothers," then ex- trinsic facts should be alleged to make it intelligible.®^ An iadict- ment designed to be based upon a forged certificate of qualification to teach a common school, and which was lost, should set forth the sub- stance of such certificate as would authorize the accused to be em- ployed as a teacher and draw the public money, if genuine; the statute states the qualifications of a school teacher, and such qualifi- cations should be alleged in the indictment."* § 946. Strictness as in larceny. — Whether the same strictness should be required in forgery as in larceny, it is clear that a partner- ship should be alleged when the forged instrument purports to be the act of partners, and the name of each member of the partnership stated." "P. V. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 101 Mass. 211; Chidester v. S.. 25 ?3 N. W. 594, 6 Am. C. R. 276; West Ohio St 433, 2 Am. C. R. 157; Hobhs V. S., 22 N. J. L. 212; Rex v. Goate, v. S., 75 Ala. 1; Polk v. S., 40 Tex. 1 Ld. Raym. 737. See also Com. v. Cr. 668, 51 S. W. 909; Womble v; S., White, 145 Mass. 392, 7 Am. C. R. 39 Tex. Cr. 24, 44 S. W. 827; P. v. 197, 14 N. E. 611; Morearty v. S., Parker, 114 Mich. 442, 72 N. W. 250; 46 Neb. 652, 65 N. W. 784; Shope v. S. v. Rose, 70 Minn. 403, 73 N. W. S., 106 Ga. 226, 32 S. B. 140. 177; S. v. Patch, 21 Mont. 534, 55 "Bell V. S., 10 Ark. 536; Peoples Pac. 108; S. -V. Wheeler, 19 .Minn. V. S., 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 95. 98, 1 Green C. R. 542. See Allgood "P. V. Todd, 77 Cal. 464, 19 Pac. v. S., 87 Ga. 668, 13 S. B. 569; Com. 883; S. V. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286; S. v. v. Dunleay, 157 Mass. 386, 32 N. E. Covington, 94 N. C. 913; P. v. Clem- 356; Yount v. S., 64 Ind. 443. ents, 26 N. Y. 193. "'Wallace v. P., 27 HI. 45; S. v. ""Rembert v. S., 53 Ala. 467, 2 Am. Grant, 74 Mo. 33; Maddox v. S., 87 C. R. 143; Crawford v. S., 40 Tex. Ga. 429, 13 S. E. 559. Cr. 344, 50 S. W. 378; P. v. Stearns, "Labbaite v. S., 6. Tex. App. 483; 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 413; Lynch v. S. Hutton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 .S W. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 53 S. W. 693; S. v. 209. See also Booth v. S., 36 Tex. Briggs, 34 Vt. .503; Cox v. S. 66 Cr. 600, 38 S. W. 196. Miss. 14, 5 So. 618; Com. v. Hinds, § 947 FORGERY. 257 §947. To whom uttered, immaterial. — It has heen held that an indictment for forgery which fails to allege the name of the person to whom the forged instrument was uttered is good.°° The allegation properly charging the accused with passing the forged bank note is sufficient without alleging to whom the same was passed."" In charg- ing the uttering of a forged instrument, the indictment need not allege by whom nor how the forged instrument was made."^ § 948. Duplicity — ^Forgery and uttering. — Charging the forging and uttering of a forged instrument in the same count of an indict- ment is bad for duplicity, each being a substantive offense."* An indictment which charges a prisoner in the same count with the of- fenses of falsely making, forging and counterfeiting, and causing and procuring to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, is not bad for duplicity, the language of the statute having been pursued in drawing, the indictment."" § 949. Forging several indorsements. — An indictment alleging the forging and uttering of a check, by raising it, and the forging of sev- eral indorsements on the back of it and passing it on a certain cor- poration, charges but a single offense, all the acts having been alleged with a single intent to defraud.^" § 950. Joining counts. — Forging three different receipts of three different persons to the same document, to wit : a fee bill, constitutes three different forgeries, and can not be joined in the same indict- ment.'^^ A count for forging an instrument and one for passing the same instrument, may be joined in the same indictment, but only one conviction and one judgment is permissible on the same.''^ "S. V. Stuart, 61 Iowa 203, 16 N. v. P., 97 111. 36; S. v. Greenwood, W. 91; S. V. Hart, 67 Iowa 142, 25 76 Minn. 207, 78 N. W. 1044, 1117; S. N. W. 99; S. V. Gaubert, 49 La. 1692, v. Myers, 10 Iowa 448. See S. v. 22 So. 930. Bracken, 152 Ind. 565, 53 N. B. 838; ™ Swain v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 179. Munoz v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 457, 50 S. W. . " S. V. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 949. N. W. 815. ™P. V. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 55 Pae. '"P. V. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 6 581; P. v. Ellenwood, 119 Cal. IBS.. Am. C. R. 276, 23 N. W. 594. 51 Pac. 553. " S. V. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452, 2 " Kotter v. P., 150 111. 441, 37 N. E. Green C. R. 339; P. v. Altman, 147 932; Barton v. S., 23 Wis. 587. N. Y. 473, 42 N. E. 180; P. v. Ley- "Parker v. P., 97 111. 37; In re shon, 108 Cal. 440, 41 Pac. 480; S. "Walsh, 37 Neb. 454, 55 N. W. 1075, 9 V. Morton, 27 Vt. 310; In re Walsh, Am. C. R. 655; S. v. Egglesht, 41 37 Neb. 454, 55 N. W. 1075; Parker Iowa 574; S. v. Hennessey, 23 OhiO' HUGHES* c. L.- 17 258 hughes' criminal law. §951 § 951. Person defrauded immaterial. — Under the statutes of some of the states, it is not necessary to allege in the indictment an inten- tion to defraud any particular person.^' But if the name of the per- son intended to be defrauded is alleged in the indictment, it must be ' proved.^* Generally there are two persons who may be defrauded: the one whose name is forged and the one to whom the forged instni- ment is passed. The indictment may, therefore, lay the intent to defraud either or both in different counts.'^ § 952. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment which, with proper averments, alleges that the defendant did unlawfully have in his possession a certain false, forged and counterfeit check purporting to have been made and drawn on certain named persons, with intent 4o utter, pass or sell such check as true, to certain persons, knowing such check to be false, forged and fraudulent, sufficiently states an ■offense under a statute which provides that any person "having pos- session of any forged check with intent to utter, pass or sell the same -as true shall" be guilty of forgery.'* In charging the forgery of an order on a certain named bank, it is not necessary to allege in the indictment that, if the order had been genuine, the bank would have ibeen bound to honor it, nor is it necessary to allege the existence of such bank. These matters are immaterial.''^ § 953. Forged deed. — ^Under a statute against "passing, uttering or publishing" any forged instrument, an indictment alleging that the defendant sold and delivered a forged deed of trust knowing it to be forged, intending to have the same uttered and passed with intent to defraud, sufficiently charges the offense.'* St. 339; S. V. Benham, 7 Conn. 414; " S. v. Newland, 7 Iowa 242; S. v. Ex parte Snow, 120 U. S. 274, 7 S. Samuels, 144 Mo. 68, 45 S. W. 1088. Ct. 556; P. V. Adler, 140 N. Y. 331, "Rounds v. S., 78 Me. 42, 2 Atl. 35 N. B. 644; S. v. Zimmerman, 47 673, 6 Am. C. R. 267; Anson v. P., Kan. 242, 27 Pac. 999; Htts v. S., 40 148 111. 494, 502, 35 N. B. 145; Barnes Tex. Cr. 667, 51 S. W. 906. v. Com., 101 Ky. 556, 19 Ky. L. 803, "S. V. McElvaln, 35 Or. 365, 58 41 S. W. 772; S. v. Hastings, 53 N. Pac. 525; S. v. Barrett, 8 Iowa 538; H. 452, 2 Green C. R. 339; 3 Greenl. Harrison v. S., 36 Ala. 248; S. v. Ev., § 18; 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 598. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, 49 S. W. 988; '• S. v. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, 49 Gentry v. S., 6 Ga. 503; Rohr v. S., S. W. 988; S. v. Greenwood, 76 Minn. 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 Atl. 673; Riley 211, 78 N. "W. 1042, 1117. See S. v. -V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 498; Dukes Webster, 152 Mo. 87, 53 N. W. 423. T. S., 94 Ga. 393, 21 S. B. 54. Contra, " Com. v. Russell, 156 Mass. 196, Huff v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 1064, 42 S. 30 N. E. 763. W. 907. ■" S. V. Mills, 146 Mo. 195, 47 S. W. 938. ^ 954 FOKGERY. 259 § 954. Tittering, indictment sufficient. — An indictment which al- leges that the defendant uttered a fictitious order for the payment of money to a person named, with intent to defraud a certain company, sufficiently states the offense, and need not allege that such person was connected with the company mentioned. '^^ § 955. Payment of money not essential. — Under a statute provid- ing that "every person who shall have in his possession any forged promissory note or notes, bank bill or bills, for the payment of money, with intent to utter or pass the same," shall be punished, an indict- ment charging the offense is not defective in failiiig to aver that the instrument was "for the payment of money."'" § 956. "As true" is material. — An indictment charging forgery by uttering, offering, putting off or disposing of a certain forged instru- ment, is defective in omitting to allege ^'as true," the phrase "as true" being a part of the statutory definition of the crime.'^ § 957. "With intent" is material. — The phrase "with intent to defraud" is an essential element of the definition of forgery, and an indictment omitting to allege such intent, though otherwise good, is defective.*^ § 958. Signing name — ^Knowledge immaterial. — ^An indictment charging forgery by signing the name of a person to an order is not required to allege that the name was signed without the knowledge of such person. It is sufficient to aver that the name was signed without authority.*^ § 959. Purport clause and tenor clause. — A material variance be- tween the purport clause and the tenor clause of an indictment ren- ders it defective, as where the purport clause alleges the instrument to "P. V. Arlington, 123 Gal. 356, 5Ef Pac. 33i; Gates v. S., 71 Miss. 874, 16 Pac. 1003. Contra, Colter v. S., 40 So. 342 (knowingly); P. v. Smith, Tex. Cr. 165, 49 S. "W. 379. 103 Cal. 563, 37 Pac. 516; S. v. Wil- «°Townsend v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) Jiams, 139 Ind. 43, 38 N. B. 339; S. 328. V. Heyeman, 2 Pen. (Del.) 143, 44 "S. V. Cody, 65 Minn. 121, 67 N. Atl. 623. See S. v. ToMe, 141 Mo. "W. 798; S. V. Hesseltine, 130 Mo. 468, 547, 42 S. W; 1076. 32 S. W. 983. »» Eldridge v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1088* ""P. V. Turner, 113 Cal. 278, 45 54 S. W. 7. 260 hughes' criminal law. § 960 be the act of one person named and the tenor clause states the instru- ment to be the act of two persons named.'* §960. Contradictory and repugnant averments. — ^An indictment which is contradictory in its averments is bad; as, where it alleges that the defendant willfully and fraudulently made a certain false instrument purporting to have been made by a certain person named, and then sets out the instrument by its tenor and alleges i;hat it, having been signed by such person as aforesaid, creates a liability. Such averments are contradictory.*^ An information charging that the defendant "altered, forged and counterfeited a receipt for money" is defective. To allege that the receipt was "altered" and "counter- feited" is repugnant.'" § 961. Alleging corporation of company. — An indictment which charges forgery by signing the name of a certain company, by proper averments, is sufficient without alleging that the company is a com- pany or corporation.'^ § 962. Uttering — ^How instrument forged not material. — An in- dictment charging the uttering of a forged document is not required to set out how the forgery was committed or by whom. If it states that the defendant delivered it, knowing it to be a forgery, that is sufficient." § 963. Information imperfect. — An information charging the forg- ery of a mortgage without alleging whether on real or personal prop- erty or whether given to secure the payment of any debt or note, does not charge an offense under the statute of California.'" Article IV. Evidence; VAKiiNCE. § 964. Production of document. — The bills, notes or coins alleged in the indictment to be counterfeit must be produced at the trial by " Fite V. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 4, 34 S. N. E. 838. See also Munoz v. S., 40 W. 922; Campbell v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. Tex. Cr. 457, 50 S. W. 949. 182, 32 S. W. 899; Overly v. S., 34 "Benson v. S., 124 Ala. 92. 26 So. Tex. Cr. 500, 31 S. W. 377. 119. » Scott V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 105, 48 »« Eldridge v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1088, S. W. 523.. See Booth v. S., 36 Tex. 54 S. W. 7, 10. Cr. 600, 38 S. W. 196. " P. v. Terrill, 127 Cal. 99, 59 Pac. »«S. V. Bracken, 152 Ind. 565, 53 836. ^ 965 FORGEKY. 261 the prosecution, or their absence accounted for, as by showing their loss, destruction, or that they are in possession of the defendant. And this rule equally applies to testimony in reference to other counter- feit bills or coins to prove guilty intent."" And the same rule applies ■with reference to any document alleged to have been forged."^ § 965. Tools are competent evidence. — Tools or machinery used in coining money or counterfeit coins, found in the possession of the ac- cused, may be proved and used in evidence for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge or the criminal intent alleged in the indictment.'^ § 966. Forged instrument competent. — The instrument alleged to be forged is always competent evidence where there is no material variance between it and that alleged in the indictment."^ § 967. Disproving fictitious person. — That no such person exists •or can be found bearing the name mentioned in the alleged forged instrument may be shown by any resident of the town in which it is claimed such person lived; or by postmen or others who never heard ■of such person ; and evidence of search for such person is competent ; and the searcher may tell what he did and said in making his search."* § 968. Proving existence of bank. — It is not necessary, on an indictment for forgery of bank notes, to prove by direct evidence the incorporation of the bank ; testimony of the most general character is sufficient for such a purpose."^ The existence of the bank may be proved by reputation, that it was acting as a bank, and as such issued bank bills as currency."* Proof of the existence of the bank on which the counterfeit notes purport to have been drawn, is not necessary J " S. V. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. °= P. v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 55 Pac. D. 678; Com. v. Blgelow, 8 Mete. 581. (Mass.) 235; Armitage v. S., 13 Ind. "Com. v. Meserve, 154 Mass. 64, 441; Kirk v. Com., 9 Leigh (Va.) 27 N. E. 997; P. v. Sharp, 53 Mich. 627. See Reg. v. Robinson, 10 Cox 523, 19 N. W. 168; P. v. Jones, 106 C. C. 107. N. Y. 523, 13 N. E. 93; 3 Greenl. Ev. "3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 107; (Redf. ed.), § 109. S. V. Lowry, 42 W. Va. 205, 24 S. E. ™ P. v. D'Argencour, 95 N. Y. 624, 561; S. V. Breckenridge, 67 Iowa 4 Am. C. R. 242; P. v. Davis, 21 206, 25 N. W. 130; Underbill Cr. Ev., Wend. (N. Y.) 309; P. v. Peahody, §§ 43, 425. 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 472; S. v. Wil- '"'P. v. Thoms, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) Hams, 152 Mo. 115, 53 S. W. 424. 262; Com. v. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) =»P. v. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645; Com. 472; P. V. White, 34 Cal. 183; Stalk- v. Carey, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 47; Cady -er v. S., 9 Conn. 341. v. Com., 10 Gratt. (Va.) 776; Un- derhill Cr. Ev., § 428. 262 hughes' criminal law. §96& unless required by statute.^'' But if the charge in the indictment be to defraud some particular bank named, then the existence of the bank must be proven as matter of description."* § 969. Coins and money presumed. — The prosecution is not re- quired to prove the existence of the current coins or paper currency of the United States. The courts will take judicial notice of the legal coins or currency.*' § 970. Eesemblance of coins. — In a case of forgery of coins, the question of resemblance or similitude is one for the jury.^"" It is not necessary that the resemblance should be exact in all respects : it is sufficient if the coins are so alike that the counterfeit would likely deceive a person exercising ordinary caution and observation.^ On the question of the resemblance of the spurious or counterfeit to the genuine money, see the following additional cases.^ § 971. Witness to prove counterfeits. — Bills alleged to be counter- feits may be proved by other persons than the officers of the bank, if they are acquainted with the signatures of the president and cashier.' § 972. Intent presumed from forgery — Knowledge. — ^Where the intent alleged is to defraud the person whose name is forged, it should be presumed from the forgery, without further proof. In fact, the allegation needs no proof.* That the defendant knew the instrument was forged may be inferred from circumstances alone.® The intent tO' "Benson v. S., 5 Minn. 19; P. v. ^TJ. S. v. Hopkins, 26 Fed. 443; S. Peabody, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 472; Mc- v. McKenzie, 42 Me. 392. Cartney v. S., 3 Ind. 353, 56 Am. D. ^'U. S. v. Morrow, 4 Wash. C. C. 510; S. V. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. 733, 48 Fed. 828; U. S. v. Abrams, D. 678; Jones V. S., 11 Ind. 360. 18 Fed. 823, 21 BlatcM. 553; De- ==P. V. Peabody, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) ment v. S., 2 Head (Tenn.) 505, 73 473; S. V. Morton, 8 Wis. 352; S. v. Am. D. 747; U. S. v. Sprague, 48 Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. D. 168; Fed. 828; U. S. v. Hopkins, 26 Fed. Com. V. Hougbton, 8 Mass. 107; S. v. 443. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. D. 678. 'Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) See P. V. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 13 745; S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; S. v. Am. St. 159, 22 Pac. 190; S. v. Harris, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 287; Com. Murphy, 17 R. I. 698, 24 Atl. 473. v. Carey, 2 Pick (Mass.) 47. "U. S. v. Williams, 4 Biss. (U.S.) * Rounds v. S., 78 Me. 42, 2 Atl. 302; U. S. V. Burns, 5 McLean (U. 673, 6 Am. C. R. 268; 2 Bish. Cr. S.) 23; U. S. V. King, 5 McLean (U. Proc, § 427. S.) 208. 'Parker v. P., 97 111. 38; Fletcher ™U. S. V. Morrow, 4 Wash. C. C. v. S., 49 Ind. 124, 19 Am. R. 673; 733, 48 Fed. 828, 831; U. S. v. Stev- Smith v. S., 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 894; ens, 52 Fed. 120. U. S. v. Brooks, 3 MacArthur 315; § 973 PORGEKY. 263 'defraud in making, having possession of, or passing counterfeit coin ^ir money may be inferred from the facts and circumstances proven.® §973. Intent — Possession of other counterfeits. — Evidence that the defendant had possession of other counterfeit money besides that alleged in the indictment may be shown in evidence as tending to prove guilty knowledge.' And the possession of instruments for making counterfeit money may be shown in evidence to prove guilty intent.* §974. Passed other forged instruments. — Evidence that the de- fendant, about the same time and under like circumstiances, passed other forged documents, is admissible to prove guilty knowledge and intention.' But there must be strict proof that such other documents are forgeries. The burden is on the prosecution to prove such other forgeries.^" § 975. Several forgeries one transaction. — Several forgeries may be shown in evidence, where they form part of one transaction and give character to the transaction, — part of the res gestae and identify the aceused.^^ S. V. Kimball, 50 Me. 409; Phillips Rose, 70 Minn. 403, 73 N. W. 177; S. y. S., 6 Tex. App. 364; Timmons v. v. Hodges, 144 Mo. 50, 45 S. W. 1093; S., 80 Ga. 216, 4 S. E. 766; tfnderhill Anson v. P., 148 111. 506, 35 N. E. fcr. Ev., § 422. 145; P. v. Sanders, 114 Cal. 216, 4S 'S. V. McPherson, 9 Iowa 53; Mc- Pac. 153; S. v. Habib, 18 R. I. 558, Gregor v. S., 16 Ind. 9; P. v. Page, 1 30 Atl. 462; S. v. Valwell, 66 Vt. Idaho 189. 558, 29 Atl. 1018; S. v. Robinson, 15 'U. S. V. Hlnman, 1 Baldw. (U. S.) N. J. L. 507; S. v. Minton, 116 Mo. ^92; Com. v. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) 610, 613, 22 S. W. 808; Thomas v. S., 472; S. V. Spalding, 19 Conn. 233, 103 Ind. 419, 432, 2 N. E. 808; Lang- 48 Ain. D. 158; P. v. Stewart, 5 Mich, ford v. S., 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; 243; S. V. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 S. v. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 134; Com. v. Am. D. 168; Hess v. S., 5 Ohio 5, 22 Russell, 156 Mass. 196, 30 N. B. 763; Am. D. 767. See Com. v. Edgerly, Lindsey v. S., 38 Ohio St. 507; Un- 10 Allen (Mass.) 184. derhill Cr. Ev., §§ 89, 423; S. v. »S. v. Antonio, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 562. Crawford, 39 S. C. 343, 17 S. E. 799. See S. V. Odel, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 552; "3 Greenl. Ev., § 111; Anson v. P., Blufe V. S., 10 Ohio St. 547. 148 111. 494, 35 N. E. 145; U. S. v. 'P. V. Everhardt, 104 N. Y. 591, Mitchell, Bald. 366; Whar. Cr. Ev., 11 N. E. 62, 5 N. Y. Cr. 91; S. v. § 48; P. v. Altman, 147 N. Y. 473, Willlains, 2 Rich. (S. C.) 418, 45 Am. 42 N. E. 180; S. v. Lowry, 42 W. Va. Dec. 741; Com. v. White, 145 Mass. 205, 24 'S. E. 561; P. v. Bird, 124 Cal. 392, 14 N. E. 611, 7 Am. C. R. 195; 32, 56 Pac. 639; S. v. Swan, 60 Kan. Fox v. P., 95 111. 71; Steele v. P., 45 461, 56 Pac. 750. 111. 152; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), " Cross v. P., 47 111. 161. § 34; Bishop v. S., 55 Md. 138; S. v. 264 hughes' criminal law. § 976 § 976. Proving' intent — Deed. — On a charge of uttering a forged deed it is competent, on intent, to show that the defendant, in a civil case against him, introduced the same deed in evidence.^^ § 977. Declarations, confessions. — Evidence of mere statements, conversations or admissions, or confessions alone as to any collateral forgery or uttering, are not admissible to prove guilty intention ; but, of course, they are admissible vrhere they relate to the forgery or uttering charged in the indictment upon which the defendant is being tried." § 978. Uttering not evidence of forging. — It can not be laid down as a rule of law that the uttering and publishing, as true, of a com- mercial instrument with the name of the payee forged thereon, raises a presumption that the person uttering and publishing is guilty of forging the instrument.^* § 979. Evidence of persons who know defendant's writing. — "As a matter of law, evidence of witnesses who know the hand-writing of the accused, to the effect that the signature to the alleged forged writing is not his, is of little value, as the forger seeks to disguise his own hand-writing and to imitate that of the man whose signature he forges."^' § 980. Bank bill is a note. — The indictment properly describes the instrument alleged to have been forged to be a "promissory note." " Preston v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 72, 48 Shope v. S., 106 Ga. 226, 32 S. B. S. W. 581. 140; Howell v. P., 178 111. 176, 52 " Fox V. P., 95 111. 71; P. v. Corbin, N. E. 873; S. v. Matlock, 119 N. C. S6 N. Y. 363; S. v. Breckenridge, 67 806, 25 S. E. 817; P. v. Leyshon, 108 Iowa 204, 25 N. W.v 130; Rex v. Cal. 440, 41 Pac. 480; Williams v. <;ooke, 8 C. & P. 582; Rex v. Millard, S. (Tex. Or.), 32 S. W. 532; Smith Rus. & Ry. 245; 2 McClaln Cr. L., v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 32 S. W. 696; S. v. 5 808; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 111. Vineyard, 16 Mont. 138, 40 Pac. 173; " Miller v. S., 51 Ind. 405, 1 Am. P. v. King, 125 Cal. 369, 58 Pac. 19; C. R. 232. Womble v. S., 107 Ga. 666, 33 S. E. "Underbill Cr. Ev., § 429, citing 630. The evidence in the following l.angdon v. P., 133 111. 382, 24 N. B. cases was held not sufficient to sus- 874; P. V. Sanders, 114 Cal. 216, 46 tain convictions: P. v. Creegan, 121 Pac. 153. The evidence in the fol- Cal. 554, 53 Pac. 1082; Eldridge v. lowing cases was held sufficient to S., 76 Miss. 353, 24 So. 313; S. v. sustain convictions: P. v. Laird, 118 White, 98 Iowa 346, 67 N. W. 267; Cal. 291, 50 Pac. 431; Grooms v. S., McCombs v. S., 109 Ga. 496, 34 S. B. 40 Tex. Cr. 319, 50 S. W. 370; P. v. 1021; Roberts v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), Lundin, 120 Cal. 308, 52 Pac. 807; 53 S. W. 864. Darby v. S. (Fla., 1899), 26 So. 315; § 981 FORGERY. 265 The instrument said to have been forged was a bank bill of an incor- porated bank doing business in another state : Held no variance.^® § 981. Forging one of several names. — The indictment charges a forgery of the whole instrument, whereas the evidence shows a forgery of only one name, while the defendant's own name is genuine : Held sufficient.^^ § 982. Immaterial variance — Date. — On a charge of forgery, there is no material variance between the date alleged in the indictment as "Oct. 18, 1895," and the date in the instrument alleged to be forged as "Oct. the 18, 1895 f nor does the word "numbers" vary from "Nos." where the latter appears at the head of a column of figures in the in- strument alleged to be forged.^* § 983. Immaterial variance — Name. — The indictment alleges an intent to defraud one John H. Harris, and the evidence showed an intent to defraud "Harris & Co.," of which firm John H. Harris was a member : Held no variance on a charge of forgery, though it would be otherwise on a charge of larceny as to ownership of property.^' The indictment charged the defendant with forging the name of the firm of "Williams & Murchison" with intent to defraud George W. Williams and Daniel M. Murchison. There was evidence tending to show that he forged the name of the firm, but there was no evidence as to who composed the firm mentioned. Held a fatal variance.^" The indictment having charged that the accused had uttered and pub- lished as true and genuine the promissory note set out, signed "S. B. Skiner," with intent to defraud one "Solomon B. Skiner," it should also have been averred in the indictment that Solomon B. Skiner was the same person meant by the name subscribed to the note.^^ '"Com. v. Woods, 10 Gray (Mass.) " S. v. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452. See 477, 481; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 108. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 421. " S. V. Davis, 69 N. C. 313, 1 Green =° S. v. Harrison, 69 N. C. 143, 1 ' C. R. 540; Duffin v. P., 107 111. 123; Green C. R. 537. See Underbill Or. S. V. Gardiner, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 27; 1 Ev., § 421. Whar. Cr. L. (8tb ed.), § 677. ='' Sbinn v. S., 57 Ind. 144, citing '=Agee V. S., 117 Ala. 169, 23 So. Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody 141; S. v. 486; Shope v. S., 106 Ga. 226, 32 Jones, 1 McAll. 236. See also Agee S. E. 140. V. S., 117 Ala. 169, 21 So. 207; Hanks V. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 54 S. W. 587. 266 hughes' criminal law. §984 § 984. Payee of money order. — Proof that the defendant forged the name of the payee to a receipt on a money order does not sustain an indictment charging him with forging a postal money order.^^ § 985. Variance — Forging or passing. — Forging a note is one of- fense and having possession of and passing it with intent to deceive and defraud is another; and proof of one wUl not support a charge of the other.''* § 986. Variance — Selling or uttering. — And "selling and barter- ing" bank notes is a different offense than "uttering and publishing" such notes.''* § 987. Variance as to numbier of document. — A variance between the number of a check as described in the indictment and the one offered in evidence is fatal, though the description in other respects may be correct.^^ § 988. Forging name to check is forgery of check. — ^An indict- ment charging the forgery of a certain name to a check, under the statute of California, sufficiently charges the forgery of the check itself.^" Aeticle V. Vestue; Jueisdiction. § 989. Venue. — Proof that the accused attempted to pass a forged note in Sangamon county is sufficient from which to infer that he forged it in the same county, in the absence of other proof to the con- trary.^^ § 990. Jurisdiction — Courts. — State as well as federal courts have jurisdiction over the crime of counterfeiting.^* The teller of a ^ Pierce v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 604, 44 313. See Sutton v. S., 58 Neb. 567, S. W. 292. 79 N. W. 154. ''Parker v. P., 97 111. 35; Ball v. '"P. v. King, 125 Cal. 369, 58 Pac. S., 48 Ark. 94, 2 S. W. 462; S. v. 19. McCormack, 56 Iowa 585, 9 N. W. "Bland v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 366; 916; Bell v. S., 57 Md. 108; Peterson Mason v. S., 32 Tex. App. 95, 22 S. V. S., 25 Tex. App. 70, 7 S. W. 530; W. 144, 408; McGuire v. S., 37 Ala. S. V. Williams, 152 Mo. 115, 53 S. 161; S. v. GuUette, 121 Mo. 447, 26 W. 424; Preston v. S. (Tex. Cr., S. W. 354; S. v. Blanchard, 74 Iowa 1899), 53 S. W. 127. 628, 38 N. W. 519; Underbill Cr. Bv., " Vanvalkenburg v. S., 11 Ohio § 426. Contra, Com. v. Parmenter, 5 404. Pick. (Mass.) 279. »»Haupt V. S., 108 Ga. 53, 34 S. E. ''"In re Truman, 44 Mo. 181; Dash- § 991 FORGERY. 267 national bank, in making false entries in the books of the bank, with intent to defraud, may be tried in the state court, under the common law.''^ § 991. Jeopardy — Possessing several documents. — Where a person has in his possession, at the same time, several forged bank notes of different banks, with the intent to pass them and thereby defraud the person who might take them, and also defraud the several banks, such facts constitute only one ofEense.'" ing V. S.. 78 Ind. 357; S. v. McPher- " S. v. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 3 Pac. son, 9 Iowa 53; Jett v. Com., 18 346, 5 Am. C. R. 74; P. v. Allen, 1 Gratt. ^Va.) 933; Martin v. S., 18 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 445; S. v. BJgglesht, Tex. App. 224; Ex. parte Geisler, 50 41 Iowa 574, 20 Am. R. 612; S. v. Fed. 411. Benham, 7 Conn. 414. " Com. V. Luberg, 94 Pa. St. 85. CHAPTEE XVI. FRAUDULENT CONVBTAKCES. Aet. I. What Constitutes the Offense, §§ 992-994 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 995-996 III. Indictment, § 997 IV. Evidence, § 998 Article I. What Constitutes the Offense. § 992. What constitutes offense. — Where a person unlawfully con- veys land which he had previously conveyed and failed to mention such former transfer in the second conveyance, with intent to defraud, the offense is complete, without showing that anybody was actually defrauded. The fraudulent intent is the essential element of the crime.^ § 993. Valuable consideration essential. — On a charge of selling or disposing of land a second time with intent to defraud, after having previously sold it to another, it must appear that the second sale was for a valuable consideration, to constitute the offense defined by statute.^ § 994. Conveying through another. — ^Under a statute making it a criminal offense to transfer or convey land knowing that it is incum- bered, with intent to cheat and defraud, one who so conveys through an innocent third person is criminally liable.^ >S. V. Wilson, 66 Mo. App. 540; ^^ Clement v. Major, 8 Colo. App. Harold v. S., 21 Neb. 50, 31 N. W. 86, 44 Pac. 776. 258; LUlie V. McMillan, 52 Iowa 463, » S. v. Hunkins, 90 Wis. 264, 62 3 N. W. 601; S. v. Jones, 68 Mo. 197. N. W. 1047, 63 N. W. 167. But see S. v. Robinson, 29 N. H. 274; S. v. Chapman, 68 Me. 477. (268) § 995 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. 269 Article II. Matters op Defense. §995. Selling land twice. — ^Under a statute providing that any person who, after once disposing of any lands, or executing any bond or agreement for their sale, shall again and for a valuable considera- tion knowingly or fraudulently sell, or execute a bond or agreement to sell or dispose of the same lands to any other person, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and, punished, it is not an offense to fraud- ulently give a mortgage on the same lands after having sold or con- tracted to sell the land. The statute contemplates the parting with the title to the lands. A mortgage is not such a sale or agreement to sell.* § 996. Secreting, when not liable. — Where a person in good faith buys property not knowing that another has a claim on it, he will not be criminally liable for refusing to disclose the location of the prop- erty.° Article III. Indictment. § 997. Duplicity — Stating different ways. — An indictment which sets out in one count the several different methods or ways of fraudu- lently removing property by the debtor, is not bad for duplicity, al- though the offense would be complete by such removal by any one of the methods.® Article IV. Byidence. § 998. Declarations of one against all. — ^Under an indictment charging two persona jointly, one as principal and the other as aiding, with disposing of goods with intent to defraud creditors of the former, evidence of what the principal said at the time he procured the goods may be admitted as competent against both, considering the relation- ship between them, — ^br other s-in-law.'^ * P. V. Cox, 45 Cal. 342. ' Com. v. Lewis, 6 Pa. S. Ct. 610. "Thomas v. S., 92 Ala. 49, 9 So. 'Reg. v. Chappie, 17 Cox C. C. 540. 455. CHAPTER XVII. blackmail; threats. Akt. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 999-1002 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1003-1007 III. Indictment, §§ 1008-1009 IV. Evidence, § 1010 Aet^icle I. Definition and Elements. § 999. Blackmail defined. — In common parlance, blackmail is ex- tortion, — ^the exaction of money for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. It imports an unlawful service and an involuntary payment. Not unfrequently, the money is extorted by threats, or by operating upon the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or threats to expose the weakness, the folly, or the criminal acts of another.'- § 1000. Any criminal offense included. — A statute which makes it a criminal offense to maliciously threaten to accuse a person of a "crime or offense with intent to compel him to do an act against his will," includes any criminal offense which may be prosecuted within the territorial limits of the United States.^ § 1001. Stating that another threatens. — ^Under a statute making it a criminal offense to threaten to accuse another of a crime, with intent to extort money, a person who, by telling another that a third person is threatening to prosecute him, and that he had better fix it up, commits an offense.* ' Anderson Law Dictionary. ' Moore v. P., 69 111. App. 398. ' S. v. Waite, 101 Iowa 377. 70 N. W. 596. (270) § 1002 BLACKMAIL ; THREATS. 271 § 1002. Collecting deht by threatening letter. — If a person, seek- ing to collect a debt, sends a letter to a debtor threatening to publish Tiim among his neighbors as a bad debtor unless he pays the debt, he violates the statute which makes it an ofEense to deliver any letter or writing threatening to do injury to the credit or reputation of an- other.* Article II. Matters op Defense. § 1003. Truth of accusation. — Where the defendant is on trial for sending a threatening letter to another charging him with selling water-soaked cotton to increase its weight, with intent to extort money from such person, the truth of the accusation is competent evidence on the issue of intent.^ § 1004. Agent of society — Defense. — Where the defendant, acting as the agent of a society for the prevention of crime, is on trial for attempted extortion, in threatening to accuse another of keeping a house of ill-fame, he is entitled to show that he was acting in obedi- ence to his instructions as such agent." § 1005. Threat must have influence. — The threat to do an injury to the person or property of another, with intent to extort money or compel a person to do an act against his will, must be so made and under such circumstances as to operate to some extent on the miud of the one whom it is intended to influence by such threat.^ § 1006. Acquiescence of person threatened no defense. — If a per- son threatens to accuse another of a crime with the intent to extort money from such other person, and in fact succeeds in obtaining the money, he will be guilty of an attempt to commit extortion; and it can be no defense that such other person was endeavoring to induce him to take the money for the purpose of accusing him of extortion.* § 1007. Guilt of person threatened no defense. — ^Where a person maliciously threatens to prosecute another for perjury with intent to *S. v. McCabe, 135 Mo. 450, 37 ' S. v. Brownlee, 84 Iowa 473, 51 S. W. 123. N. W. 25. 'Cohen v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 118, 38 'P. v. Gardner, 144 N. Y. 119, 38 S. W. 1005. See S. v. Debolt, 104 N. B. 1003; Wynne v. S. (Tex. Cr.), Iowa 105, 73 N. W. 499. 55 S. W. 837. °P. v. Gardner, 144 N. Y. 119, 38 N. E. 1003. 272 hughes' criminal law. § 1008 compel such other person "to do an act against his will," such threat constitutes an ofEense, and the guilt or innocence of the person so threatened is not material.* Article III. Indictment. § 1008. Statutory words sufficient. — An information following the statutory words which alleges that the defendant "did verbally, un- lawfully and maliciously threaten to accuse" another of a crime named, with intent to extort money, sufficiently states the ofEense of threatening to prosecute for a crime.^" § 1009. Indictment defective. — An indictment which charges that the defendant did verbally and maliciously threaten to accuse a person named of selling intoxicating liquor without then and there having a legal license to keep a dram-shop, with intent to extort money from the person named, is defective.^^ Article IV. Evidence. § 1010. Intent — ^Evidence proving. — Evidence that the accused had caused the arrest of a person whom the complaint alleges he threatened to prosecute for perjury, is competent, on the trial of the defendant, as tending to prove his intention.^^ ' P. v. Whittemore, 102 Mich. 519, W. 548. See S. v. Waite, 101 Iowa 61 N. W. 13; P. V. Choynski, 95 Cal. 377, 70 N. W. 596. 640, 30 Pac. 791. " Rank v. P., 80 111. App. 40. " P. V. Frey, 112 Mich. 251, 70 N. "^ P. v. Whittemore, 102 Mich. 519, 61 N. W. 13. CHAPTBE XVHI."* FOWLING AND FISHING. IIlet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1011-1012 II. Statutes Held Valid, §§ 1013-1023 III. Matters of Defense, §§ 1024-1030 IV. Indictment, §§ 1031-1034 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1011. Game defined. — Birds and beasts of a wild nature, ob- tained by fowling and hunting, are game.^ The word "game," used in the section of the South Carolina constitution prohibiting special legislation for the protection of game, includes fish." § 1012. Game, property of public. — Game and fish, like air and water to a large extent, are the common inheritance of mankind, and they belong to the entire community collectiyely, and always have been subject to legislative control.^ Article II. Statutes Held Valid. § 1013. Statutes constitutional — Police power. — The power of the legislature to pass laws for the protection and preservation of fish in the waters of the state has been so frequently exercised and so long and uniformly acquiesced in, that the existence of the power, •at the present day, is scarcely open to question.'* A statute prohibiting ' 1 Bouv. Law Diet. Collison, 85 Mich. 105, 48 N. "W. = S. V. Higglns, 51 S. C. 51, 28 S. 292. B. 15. • " p. V. Bridges, 142 111. 41, 31 N. E. "Parker v. P., Ill 111. 588; Howes 115; S. v. Blount, 85 Mo. 543; V. Grush, 131 Mass. 207; S. v. Lewis, Hughes v. S., 87 Md. 298, 39 Atl. 747; 134 Ind. 250, 33 N. E. 1024; P. v. Com. v. Richardson, 142 Mass. 71, hughes' e. L.— 18 (273) 274 hughes' criminal law. § 1014 ihe obstruction to the free passage of fish up or down or through any ■of the rivers, creeks, streams, ponds, lakes, sloughs, bayous or other water-courses within the state, by any dam or other obstruction is not unconstitutional ; nor can any person claim the right to so obstruct • ihe passage of fish by prescription.^ A statute regulating and re- stricting fishing in navigable waters, is valid, and is not an interfer- ence with the natural rights of citizens of the state." A statute pro- hibiting fishing with gig or like instrument during certain months of the year, is within the proper exercise of the police power .'^ § 1014. Fish are wild. — Fish in streams or bodies of water have always been classed by the common law as ferae naturae, in which the .owner of the soil covered by the water has at best but a qualified prop- erty, though ;he may have the sole and exclusive right of fishing in -such waters.' § 1015, Waters, public or private. — There may be and doubtless are various lakes, ponds, sloughs and bayous in the state which are so iar private property that the owner may drain them or fill them up . Twithout infringing any public or private right, but which, so long las they are permitted to remain in a natural condition, are places where fish common to the waters of the state are propagated and raised." § 1016. Water-course defined. — To constitute a water-course, there must be a stream fiowing in a particular direction into some other stream or body of water.^" § 1017. Obstructiiig free passage.^'^Where a person has authority lo construct a mill-dam, he, in its construction, must observe the laws ■7 N. E. 26; Magner v. P., 97 111. E. 675; Hughes v. S., 87 Md. 298, 39 320; Gentile v. S., 29 Ind. 409; S. v. Atl. 747. Beal, 75 Me. 289; Weller v. Snover, 'V. v. Bridges, 142 111. 40, 31 N. B. -42 N. J. L. 341; Drew v. Hilliker, 115; Treat v. Parsons, 84 Me. 520, 56 Vt. 641; S. v. Franklin Palls Co., 24 Atl. 946; Ex parte Marsh, 57 Fed. 49 N. H. 240; M'Candlish v. Com., 76 719; Peters v. S., 96 Tenn. 682, 36 Va. 1002; S. v. Gallop, 126 N. C. 979, S. W. 399; S. v. Lewis, 134 Ind. 250, 35 S. B. 180. 33 N. W. 1024. ' Parker v. P., Ill 111. 585. ' P. v. Bridges, 142 111. 38, 31 N. • S. V. Woodard, 123 N. C. 710, 31 .E. 115. See S. v. Theriault, 70 Vt. ■S. E. 219; S. v. Gallop, 126 N. C. 979, 617, 41 Atl. 1030. 35 S. E. 180. ^^ Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kan. 352; ' Lewis V. S., 148 Ind. 346. 47 N. P. v. Bridges, 142 111. 37, 31 N. B. 115. § 1018 FOWLING AND PISHING. 275 relating to the protection of fish ; and he will not be permitted to ob- struct the free passage of fish in the water-course.^^ § 1018. Fishing with net. — A statute which prohibits the catching of trout with a net during any season of the year includes the catching of trout in a stream on one's own land.^^ § 1019. Carrying to market. — A statute making it unlawful for any person, corporation or carrier to convey or transport to market, quail and certain other game mentioned during a certain season of each year, is valid, and any violation thereof will subject the offender to the penalty prescribed.^* § 1020. Jeopardy hut once. — Section fourteen of the fish law of Illinois, of the acts of 1885 and 1887, providing for an appeal from a judgment acquitting one charged with a breach of that law and for another trial on such appeal, is unconstitutional, in violation of sec- tion 10, article 2, of the constitution, providing that "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or twice put in jeopardy for the same offense."** § 1021. Game shipped into state. — A statute prohibiting persons killing, selling or having in possession for sale certain kinds of game during a designated period of time of each year, includes any such game shipped into the state from other states for sale; and such statute is not in conflict with section 8 of article 1 of the consti- tution of the United States, which confers upon congress power to regulate commerce among the states.*^ § 1022. Knowledge essential. — ^Before a common carrier sngaged in transporting goods to market can be held liable for having posses- "S. V. Gilmore, 141 Mo. 506, 42 ens v. S., 89 Md. 669, 43 Atl. 929; S. W. 817; West Point Water Power, Com. v. Young, 165 Mass. 396, 43 «tc., Co. V. S., 49 Neb. 218, N. E. 118 (lobsters); Roth v. S., 51 66 N. W. 6; S. v. Beardsley, 108 Iowa Ohio St. 209, 37 N. B. 259; Ex parte 396, 79 N. W. 138. Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402; S. "Com. V. Follett, 164 Mass. 477, v. Schuman, 36 Or. 16, 58 Pac. 661, 41 N. E. 676. 47 L. R. A. 153; Javins v. U. S., 11 " Amer. Exp. Co. v. P., 133 111. 649, App. D. C. 345. See Applegarth v. 24 N. E. 758. S., 89 Md. 140, 42 Atl. 941. Contra, "P. v. Miner, 144 111. 308, 33 N. P. v. Buffalo Fish Co., 62 N. Y. Supp. E. 40. 543, 1143, 30 Misc. 130. "Magner v. P., 97 111. 333; Stev- 276 hughes' criminal law. § 1023 sion of prohibited game, such as short lobsters, in barrels, it must appear that the carrier knew or had reasonable cause to believe the barrels contained such lobsters.^* § 1023. Animal in one's park. — The owner of a park of hundred acres, mostly covered with woods, can not lawfully, during the close season, kill a deer which was put in his park when a fawn, where it roamed about wildly.^' Aeiicle III. Mattees of Defense. § 1024. rishing with nets. — ^Under a statute which prohibits fish- ing with gill nets more than twenty yards long, it is a violation to fasten several nets of that length together, with six inches of space between each net.^' § 1025. Fishing with hook. — ^After a fish has been caught by means of a hook, the use of a landing-net for the purpose of bringing it into physical possession is not fishing with a net in violation of a statute prohibiting such fishing.^" § 1026. Selling lobsters. — ^Under a statute prohibiting the selling, ofEering for sale, or having in possession, lobsters less than a stated length are included dead lobsters.^" § 1027. Fishing with hook and line. — A common fishing line with one hook used in fishing can not be regarded as a "set line" withia the meaning of the law relating to fishing with a "pound net, seine, gill net, set net or fyke."^^ § 1028. Fishing for turtles. — ^Where a person uses nets to catch turtles, but made with openings for the escape of fish, he will not be liable for catching fish with such nets, if he returns any fish alive, to the water, which he happens to catch, so far as he possibly can.''^ " S. V. Swett, 87 Me. 99, 32 Atl. =» Com. v. Hodgkins, 170 Mass. 197, 806. 49 N. E. 97. " S. V. Parker, 89 Me. 81, 35 Atl. =" S. v. Stevens, 69 Vt. 411, 38 Atl. 1021. 80; In re Yell, 107 Mich. 228, 65 N. " S. V. ■Woodard, 123 N. C. 710, 31 W. 97. S. B. 219. • ^ P. V. Deremo, 106 Mich. 621, 64 "» Com. V. Wetherill, 8 Pa. Dist. R. N. W. 489. 653, 13 York Leg. Rec. 113. ^ 1029 POWLiNa AND PisHiNa. 277 § 1029. Having possession of birds. — A person having in his pos- session live birds and exposing them for sale is not liable under a statute making it an offense to kill or expose for sale or have in his possession, after the same are killed, certain birds named in the statute.^^ § 1030. Killing rabbits. — A statute which makes it an offense to "shoot or in any manner catch, kill or have possession" of any rabbit during a certain season of the year, does not include such rabbits law- fully killed in another state.^* Article IV. Indictment. § 1031. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment charging that the ■defendant, on October 26, 1894, had in his possession ninety-six rabbits, contrary to the statute, sufficiently states the offense under a statute which provides that no person shall "catch, kill or have in his possession" any rabbit between December 34th and November 1st next following.^' § 1032. Negative averment. — ^TJnder a statute prohibiting the ■catching of iish with a "net other than a dip-net," an indictment charging the fishing "with a net" does not sufficiently state an of- iense.''* § 1033. Indictment defective. — An indictment charging that the ■defendant had in his possession, for transportation, a trout that ■"weighed four and one-half" does not state the weight of the fish.^'^ § 1034. Alleging exception. — An indictment or complaint for the unlawful sale of trout during a certain season of the year, need not allege that the sale did not come within the exception mentioned in •other statutes.^^ '^'P. v. Fishbough, 134 N. Y. 393, " S. v. Whitten, 90 Me. 53, 37 AtL 31 N. B. 983. 331. "Dickhaut v. S., 85 Md. 451, 37 ^'S. v. Skolfield, 86 Me. 149, 29 Atl. 21. Atl. 922; Com. v. Bell, 17 Ky. L. ""Dickhaut v. S., 85 Md. 451, 37 277, 30 S. W. 997; Com. v. Drain, 99 Atl. 21. Ky. 162, 18 Ky. L. 50. 35 S. W. 269. '"Com. V. Bell, 17 Ky. L. 277, 30 S. W. 997. \ CHAPTER XIX. rOECIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINEE. 'Aei. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1035-1037 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1038-1039 III. Indictment, §§ 1040-1044 IV. Evidence, §§ 1045 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1035. Common law offense. — The offense of violently taking or keeping possession of lands or tenements with menaces, force and arms, and without authority at law, is a common law offense.^ § 1036. Premises in possession essential. — It is essential that the premises in question be in the actual possession of the person claiming^ to have been unlawfully dispossessed.^ § 1037. "Force" essential. — The entry must be effected by actual force and violence against the person in possession of the premises, or with such numbers of persons and show of force as would be calcu- lated to deter the owner making resistance.* Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1038. May resist being dispossessed. — Although the person en- titled to possession of the premises may not take forcible possession, yet he may hold the same by force when rightfully in possession.' ^ 4 Bl. Com. 128. (Mass.) 141; Brazee v. S., 9 Ind. 'S. V. Bryant, 103 N. C. 436, 9 App. 618, 37 N. E. 279; S. v. Davis^ S. B. 1; Com. v. Brown, 138 Pa. St. 109 N. C. 809, 13 S. E. 883. 447, 21 Atl. 17. * Com. v. Knarr, 135 Pa. St. 35, 1» » S. V. Talbot, 97 N. C. 494, 2 S. E. Atl. 805; Vess v. S., 93 Ind. 211. 148; Com. v. Shattuck, 4 Cush. (278) § 1039 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. 279 § 1039. Better title, no defense, — Forcibly entering a house in the lawful poeaession of another constitutes an offense under a statute making it a criminal offense to "willfully deface, damage or injure any house," although the accused may have a better title to the premises than the person so in possession.^ Akticle III. Indictment. § 1040. General description sufficient. — A general description of the premises is all that is necessary to be alleged in the indictment where restitution is not involved in the criminal proceedings." § 1041. Different counts, different owners. — An indictment setting^ out separate and distinct counts of forcible entry and detainer, some of which allege the possession of the premises to be in the owner and others in possession of a tenant, is not bad for repugnancy.'' § 1042. Facts constituting "force" essential. — ^TJnder a statute making it a misdemeanor to "take possession of land by force and violence," an indictment or information must set out the facts con- stituting the force and violence by which the land was taken.' An indictment alleging forcible entry "with force and arms" does not sufficiently state an offense, under a statute making it a criminal offense to take possession by force "and with a strong hand or bj menaces or threats."® § 1043. Indictment — Written lease. — An indictment alleging that "one (a person named) then and there having a valid and existing; written lease and being entitled to the possession" of the premises in. question, sufficiently states that he had a written lease and was en- titled to the possession of the premises.^" "Rex V. Smyth, 5 C. & P. 201; S. "Com. v. Brown, 138 Pa. St. 447, V. Howell, 107 N. C. 835, 12 S. E. 21 Atl. 17, 28 "W. N. C. 149; Com. v. 569; P. V. Leach, Addis. 352; Bish. Shattuck, 4 Gush. (Mass.) 141; S. New Cr. Proc, § 385. v. Leathers, 31 Ark. 44; S. v. Pear- 's, v. Warren, 13 Tex. 45 ; Vanpool son, 2 N. H. 550; 2 Bish. New Cr» v. Com., 13 Pa. St. 391. Proc, §§ 371, 372, 378. 'S. V. Rohbins, 123 N. C. 730, 31 "Winn v. S., 55 Ark. 360, 18 S. W. S. E. 669. 375. ' Smith v. S., 2 Mo. App. Rep. 134. 280 hughes' criminal law. § 1044 § 1044. Duplicity — ^Entry and detainer. — ^An indictment charging in the same count a forcible entry and a forcible detainer, is not bad for duplicity.^^ Aeticle IV. Evidence; Vaeiancb. § 1045. Fact of civil suit, incompetent. — Evidence that the prose- cuting witness had commenced a civil suit in reference to the same land involved in the criminal case of forcible entry, is not competent." "Com. V. Miller, 107 Pa. St. 276; cases was held sufficient to sustain Com. V. Rogers, 1 Serg. & R. 124. convictions: S. v. Robbins, 123 N. " Lewis V. S., 105 Ga. 657, 31 S. E. C. 730, 31 S. E. 669; S. v. Lawson, 576. The evidence in the following 123 N. C. 740, 31 S. B. 667. CHAPTER XX. TRESPASS. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1046-1052 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1053-1060 III. Indictment, §§ 1061-1064 IV. Evidence; Witnesses, §§ 1065-1066 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1046. What constitutes trespass. — If a person enters upon the land of another after he is forbidden, he will be liable to a charge of criminal trespass, no matter what may be his intention, under a stat- ute which makes it a criminal offense "if any person, after being for- bidden to do so, shall go or enter upon the lands of another without a license therefor."^ § 1047. Destroying fences. — Entering the premises of another and maliciously or wantonly destroying or tearing down fences is made criminal by statute.'' § 1048. Ownership — Legal title immaterial. — The person in pos- session of the land which the defendant is charged with entering upon by trespass, need not be the owner in the sense of holding the legal ' title. It is sufficient if the person in possession be an agent or tenant.' - 'S. V. Fisher, 109 N. C. 817, 13 S. St. 55, 23 Atl. 233; Brazleton v. S., B. 878; S. v. Green, 35 S. C. 266, 14 66 Ala. 96. S. B. 619. See Lindley v. S. (Tex. » S. v. Green, 35 S. C. 266, 14 S. Cr.), 44 S. W. 165. E. 619; S. v. Whittier, 21 Me. 341. 'S. V. Biggers, 108 N. C. 760, 12 See Withers v. S., 117 Ala. 89, 23' S. E. 1024; Com. v. Brass, 146 Pa. So. 147; Sherman v. S., 105 Ala. 115, 17 So. 103; 2 McGlain Cr. L., § 830. (281) 282 hughes' criminal law. § 1049 § 1049. "Willful" is essential.— To constitute the offense of tres- pass on the land of another, it nnist appear that the trespass was com- mitted willfully ; a trespass by mistake is not criminal.* § 1050. Force or demonstration essential. — There must be actual force employed, or such a demonstration by use of weapons or other appearance of violence, or by numbers, as is calculated to put the occupant of the premises in fear.° § 1051. Premises must be in possession or control. — Criminal tres- pass can not be committed on unoccupied land or land not in. actual possession of the owner or person entitled to possession.' A guardian having the management of the estate of an insane person 'Tias the control" of such estate within the meaning of a statute forbidding trespassing upon land in the control of another.'^ § 1052. Officer breaking door to levy. — ^An officer can not lawfully break an outer door of a dwelling-house for the purpose of levying an attachment upon the property of the owner ; his act in doing so is a criminal trespass, and all persons aiding him are likewise guilty.* Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1053. Entering under belief of claim. — It is a good defense to a charge of willful trespass upon the land of another that the defendant entered under a bona fide claim to the land." § 1054. Receiving assent is defense. — It is a good defense to a charge of knowingly and willfully, without color of title, cutting and destroying trees upon the land of a corporation, that the board of * Boykin v. S., 40 Fla. 484, 24 So. • S. v. Newbury, 122 N. C. 1077, 29 141; Lessen v. S., 62 Ind. 437; Boar- S. E. 367; Hester v. S., 67 Miss. 129, man v. S., 66 Ark. 65, 48 S. W. 899. 6 So. 687. See Cox v. S., 105 Ga. 610, 31 S. E. ' Gray v. Parke, 162 Mass. 582, 39 650; S. V. Glenn, 118 N. C. 1194, 23 N. E. 191. S. E. 1004. See also on intent: S. v. " S. v. Whitaker, 107 N. C. 802, 12 Malloy, 34 N. J. L. 410; Duncan v. S. E. 456. S., 49 Miss. 331; Padgett v. S., 81 ° S. v. Glenn, 118 N. C. 1194, 23 Ga. 466, 8 S. E. 445; Branch v. S., S. E. 1004; S. v. Durham, 121 N. C. 41 Tex. 622; Folwell v. S., 49 N. J. 546, 28 S. E. 22; Barlow v. S., 120 L. 31, 6 Atl. 619. Ind. 56, 22 N. E. 88; Lackey v. S., » S. V. Gray, 109 N. C. 790, 14 S. B. 14 Tex. App. 164. 55; S. V. Covington, 70 N. C. 71; S. V. Barefoot, 89 N. C. 565. § 1055 TRESPASS. 283 trustees, of which the defendant was a member, assented to the cutting and removal of the trees and expressed opinions that the trees should be removed, though such assent was not given in a formal way by- resolution.^" § 1055. Entering by permission — ^Defense. — If the owner of land which is occupied by himself and his tenants directs one to go upon tlie land and drive away some cattle belonging to such owner, the person so entering upon the land for that purpose will not be guilty of trespass, although the tenants object.^^ § 1056. Removing fence from premises. — A railroad company has a right to remove a fence constructed on its right of way by the owner of adjoining lands, without becoming liable to criminal trespass. ^^ § 1057. Taking from dwelling. — Taking and carrying away the person's goods from his dwelling-house, without the consent of the owner, is not a criminal act within the meaning of a statute forbid- ding the carrying away any article of value from the land, inclosed or uninclosed, of another person.^* § 1058. Claim of superior title — ^Bona fide claim. — On a charge of criminal trespass, the claim of the defendant that he had a superior title to the land in question than the prosecutor, is no defense.^* To a charge of willfully entering on the land of another and carrying off wood, it is no defense that the defendant merely made an entry and location of such land without making a survey or obtaining a grant from the state. This is not sufficient to show a lona fide claim to the land." § 1059. Mere belief, no defense. — A bare belief that one has a right to enter upon the land of another under a claim, unsupported by facts showing such claim to be reasonable, is no defense to a charge of criminal trespass.^" "Mettler v. P., 135 111. 410, 414, ^=Grier v. S., 103 Ga. 428, 30 S. 25 N. B. 748; S. v. Prince, 42 La. 817, E. 255. 8 So. 591. "Lawson v. S., 100 Ala. 7, 14 So. "Bowles V. S. (Miss.), 14 So. 261. 870; Burks v. S., 117 Ala. 148, 23 See Padgett v. S., 81 Ga. 466, 8 S. So. 530; Carter v. S., 18 Tex. App. E. 445; Mays v. S., 89 Ala. 37, 8 573. So. 28. " S. V. Calloway, 119 N. C. 864, 26 "Ryan v. S., 5 Ind. App. 396, 31 S. E. 46. N. E. 1127; Wise v. Com. (Va.), 36 "S. v. Durham, 121 N. C. 546, 28 S. B. 479 (belief as to ownership). S. E. 22. 284 HUGHES' CRIMINAL LAW. § 1060 § 1060. Driving horses across. — Driving a herd of horses over and across the land of another, thereby destroying the growing grass, does not constitute a willful and malicious trespass upon the land of an- other.^^. Article III. Indictment. § 1061. Forbidden to enter premises. — It is not necessary to allege, in an indictment charging criminal trespass, that the defendant had been forbidden to enter the premises.^' § 1062. Taking timber — "Without consent" essential. — An indict- ment charging the unlawful taking away of timber, though following the language of the statute, is not sufBeient unless it also contains an averment that the taking was without the consent of the owner.^" § 1063. Not duplicity. — An indictment, charging that the de- fendant unlawfully cut down trees growing upon different sections of land, is not bad for duplicity, although the different tracts of land are not contiguous.^" § 1064. Indictment sufficient — Cutting timber. — An indictment charging criminal trespass by cutting down trees on the land of an- other, which alleges that the defendant did "cut down, destroy, and carry away timber," sufficiently avers that the timber was growing timber.^^ Article IV. Evidence; Witnesses. § 1065. Owner, not necessary witness. — ^It is not essential that the owner of the land should be the prosecutor in a case of criminal tres- pass upon the land of another.^^ § 1066. Variance — ^Two owners. — Under an indictment charging trespass on the land of two persons named, evidence of a trespass on land owned by one of such persons will not support the indictment."' "S. V. Tincher, 57 Kan. 136, 45 »>Boarman v. S., 6G Ark. 65, 48 Pac. 91. S W 899 "S. V. Austin, 121 N. C. 620, 28 '==s! v. Turner, 60 Conn. 222, 22 S. E. 361. Atl. 542. See Parham v. S. (Ala.), "Com. V. Moore, 17 Ky. L. 212, 30 27 So. 778 (deed of premises, evl- S. W. 873. dence). =°S. V. Paul, 81 Iowa 596, 47 N. =•' Eubank v. S., 105 Ga. 612, 31 W. 773. S. E. 741. PART THREE OFFENSES AGAINST PEACE AND ORDER CHAPTER XXI. ABANDONMBSTT OP WIFE. Aet, I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1067-1069 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1070-1073 III. Indictment, §§ 1074-1076 IV. Evidence; Variance; Witnesses, . . . §§ 1077-1080 Aeticle I. Demnition and Elements § 1067. Statutory provisions. — In some of the states it is made a criminal offense for a man to abandon his wife or children, or to fail to properly support them.^ § 1068. Statute includes charitahle institutions. — Statutory pro- visions exist in most of the states making it a criminal offense for any parent or person having the care and custody of children of tender age to fail to furnish them with proper food and clothing ; and such statutes are comprehensive enough to include any charitable institu- tion assuming the responsibility of caring for such children.^ 'Com. V. Baldwin, 149 Pa. St. 305, 280; Com. v. Baldwin, 149 Pa. St. 24 Atl. 283; S. v. Kerby, 110 N. C. 305, 24 Atl. 283; Bull v. S., 80 Ga. 658, 14 S. E. 856. 704, 6 S. E. 178; Com. v. Ellis, 160 = Cowley V. P., 83 N. Y. 464; S. v. Mass. 165, 35 N. E. 773; S. v. Smith, Kerby, 110 N. C. 558, 14 S. E. 856; 46 Iowa 670; Com. v. Johnson, 162 Com. V. Stoddard, 9 Allen (Mass.) Mass. 596, 39 N. E. 349. (285) 286 hughes' criminal law. § 1069 § 1069. Intent to abandon. — Under a statute providing that "if any father shall willfully abandon his child or children, leaving them in a destitute condition, such father shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," it must appear that he has left his children intending to abandon them to their own fate, without providing for them the necessaries of life.8 Aeticle II. Matters of Deeense. § 1070. Wife's adultery. — It is a good defense to a charge of aban- donment if the husband left his wife because she had committed adultery.* Misconduct of the wife by committing adultery after she has been abandoned is no defense to a charge against him for aban- donment.'^ That the wife had been guilty of illicit intercourse with another man before her marriage is no defense to a charge against her husband for abandonment, when he was fully informed of her con- duct at the time.* § 1071. Divorce pending. — The fact that divorce proceedings may be pending between the husband and wife is no defense to a charge against the husband for neglecting to support his wife.' § 1072. Husband attending Ms father. — The fact that the husband abandoned his wife to give his attention and services to his father, with the expectation of securing his father's home at his death, is no defense to a charge of failing to support his wife.* § 1073. Without means. — It is no defense to a charge of abandon- ment against a husband that he is without means and therefore unable to support his wife or family. But physical or mental inability is a good defense.' = Crow V. S., 96 Ga. 297, 22 S. E. ' Hall v. S.. 100 Ala. 86, 14 So. 948, 10 Am. C. R. 1. 867. * P. V. Brady, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1118, • S. v. Maher, 77 Mo. App. 401; S, 13 Misc. 294; P. v. Bliskey, 47 N. Y. v. Ransell, 41 Conn. 433. Supp. 974, 21 Misc. 433; Com. v. 'Com. v. Simmons, 165 Mass. 356, Porter, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 503; S. v. 43 N. E. 110. See Hall v. S., 100 Link, 68 Mo. App. 161 (drunken- Ala. 86, 14 So. 867. ness) ; Carney v. S., 84 Ala. 7, 4 So. » P. v. Malsch, 119 Mich. 112, 77 285, 7 Am. C. R. 7; Com. v. Ham, 156 N. W. 638. Mass. 485, 31 N. B. 639. But see ' Com. v. Baldwin, 149 Pa. St. 305, S. V. Tierney, 1 Pen. .(Del.) 116, 39 24 Atl. 283; S. v. Witham, 70 Wis. Atl. 774. 473, 35 N. W. 934. f 1074 ABANDONMENT OF WIFE. 287 Article III. Indictment. § 1074. Statutory words sufficient. — An indictment charging a husband with the offense of abandonment or failure to support his wife or children, will be sufficient if it states the offense in the words of the statute, without setting out the particular facts constituting the offense.^" § 1075. Residence not essential. — An information against a hus- band for willful neglect to support his wife need not allege that the defendant is a resident to confer jurisdiction to prosecute him.^^ § 1076. Duplicity — Wife and child. — Under a statute against a husband for neglecting or refusing to provide for his wife or child, an information charging him with neglecting both his wife and child is not bad for duplicity.^^ Article IV. Evidence; Variance; Witnesses. § 1077. In rebuttal. — The husband having testified that he was always willing to support his wife and child, the prosecution may show, on cross-examination of the defendant, that he gave public notice in a local newspaper that he would not be responsible for debts contracted by his wife.^* § 1078. In rebuttal to charges. — ^In rebuttal to the husband's charges of misconduct of his wife that she had been guilty of breaches of her marriage obligations, she may show in evidence a decree against him in a divorce proceeding.^* • § 1079. Witness — ^Wife competent. — The wife of the defendant is a competent witness against her husband on a charge of abandonment or failure to support her, and she may make the complaint against him.^° '° S. V. Davis, 70 Mo. 467. , " Jenness v. S., 103 "Wis. 553, 79 " Poole V. P., 24 Colo. 510, 52 Pac. N. W. 759. 1025. See P. v. Meyer, 33 N. Y. ^= Jenness v. S., 103 Wis. 553, 79 Supp. 1123, 12 Misc. 613; S. v. Mc- N. W. 759. Culloiigh, 1 Pen, (Del.) 274, 40 Atl. "Com. v. Ham, 156 Mass. 485, 31 237. N. E. 639. "S. V. Newberry, 43 Mo. 429. 288 hughes' criminal law. JIOSO* § 1080. Wife non-resident — Jurisdiction. — ^The court will not be authorized to try an abandonment cause if the wife was not a resident within the jurisdiction of the court at the time the abandonment took place.^' "P. V. Sagazei, 59 N. Y. Supp. 701, 27 Misc. 727. CHAPTEE XXII. DISOPDEELT CONDUCT. Aht. I. What Gonstitutes Offense, §§ 1081-1090- II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1091-1094 III. Indictment, §§ 1095-1106 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1107-1111 Article I. What Constitutes Oeeense. § 1081. Boisterous conduct. — Boisterous conduct or threatening; language, creating or tending to create a breach of the peace, consti- tutes disorderly conduct.^ § 1082. Offensive language. — If a person calls another a damned highway robber in a public house or place, in a loud voice, he is guilty of disorderly conduct.^ § 1083. Disturbing family. — ^Disturbing a woman occupying her dwelling alone is a "disturbance of a family."* But disturbing the peace of a single individual by calling her a whore in a loud and abusive manner, is not disturbing a family.* § 1084. Disturbing religious meeting. — Disturbing a public assem- bly of people met for religious worship is a common law offense.^ 'P. V. Johnson, 86 Micb 175, 48 S. E. 157; Newton v. S., 94 Ga. N. W. 870, 24 Am. R. 116;Com.v.Fo- 593, 19 S. E. 895. See S. v. Mc- ley, 99 Mass. 497; S. v. Warner, 34 Connell (N. H.), 47 Atl. 267. Conn. 276; Hearn v. S., 34 Ark. 550. 'Noe v. P., 39 111. 97. See S. v. See Metcalf v. P., 2 Colo. App. 262, Burns, 35 Kan. 387, 11 Pac. 161; 30 Pac. 39; Davis v. Burgess, 54 Bones v. S., 117 Ala. 146, 23 So. 485.- Mich. 514, 20 N. "W. 540, 52 Am. *S. v. Schlottman, 52 Mo. 164, 1 R. 828. Green C. R. 553. ' S. V. Sherrard, 117 '.T. C. 716, 23 " S. v. "Wright, 41 Ark. 412, 48- HUGHES' c. L.— 19 (289) 290 hughes' criminal law. § 1085 The use of abusive or insulting language to one of the worshipers at a religious meeting is sufficient to constitute an offense, though not heard or observed by any others than the one to whom addressed.' An assemblage of people met for the purpose of religious worship is not confined to worship in a church, house, or any building. It may be an open-air meeting or in a private place.'' And the statutory protection from disturbance extends to all religious denominations, irrespective of creed or mode of worship, unless unlawful.* § 1085. Singing school is "school." — A singing school kept and taught for culture and improvement in sacred and church music, is a •school within the meaning of the' statute as to disturbing any pubfie or private school. But to constitute a school there must be a master who instructs, and there must be pupils who receive instruction from the master.^" ^ 1086. Meeting for temperance discussion. — The statute of Massa- ■chusetts is: "Every person who shall willfully interrupt or disturb any school or other assembly met for a lawful purpose within the place «f such meeting or out of it, shall be punished." This statute in- cludes meetings assembled for the discussion of temperance and such other meetings.^^ § 1087. Discharging fire-arms. — Discharging fire-arms in a wanton manner in the street of a city is a breach of the peaee.^^ § 1088. Willfulness essential. — That the act in disturbing an as- sembly met for religious worship was willfully or intentionally done Am. R. 43; P. v. Degey, 2 Wheeler 'Wood v. S., 11 Tex. App. 321; Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 135; U. S. v. Hull v. S., 120 Ind. 154, 23 N. E. Brooks, 4 Cranch 428; P. v. Crowley, 117. 23 Hun (N. Y.) 413; S. v. Jasper, »° S. v. Gager, 28 Conn. 234. See 4 Dev. (N. C.) 325. S. v. Spray, 113 N. C. 686, 18 S. E. »S. V. Wright, 41 Ark. 414, 48 700. Am. R. 43; McVea v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. "Com. v. Porter, 1 Gray (Mass.) 1, 26 S. W. 834, 28 S. W. 469; Cockre- 476. See Von Rueden v. S., 96 Wis. iam V. S., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 12. 671, 71 N. W. 1048; S. v. Yeaton, 53 •Rogers v. Brown, 20 N. J. L. Me. 127. 121; S. V. Norris, 59 N. H. 536; "P. v. Bartz, 53 Mich. 493, 19 Stratton v. S., 13 Ark. 691; S. v. N. W. 161. Swink, 4 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.) 358; Bush V. S., 6 Tex. App. 422. ^ 1089 DISOEDEKLY CONDUCT, 291 is essential to constitute the offense;^'' but the intent may be in- ferred."^ Willfulness is not essential to constitute the offense of disturbing the peaee.^* § 1089. Intoxicated in public place. — ^A statute which provides that "any person intoxicated in a public place is a disorderly person," and shall be fined or imprisoned, defines a misdemeanor.^^ § 1090. Ordinance valid. — A city, by its charter, being authorized to prohibit drunkenness, an ordinance passed and adopted by virtue of such authority, against drunkenness, is a proper exercise of the police power within the constitution.^^ § 1090a. Vagrancy. — Persons who spend their time in idleness, or roam about begging or living without labor or visible means of sup- port, are guilty of vagrancy.^'* Article II. Matters op Defense. § 1091. Disturbing religious meeting. — The defendant was fight- ing with another near a church, but the language used by him during the fight was not loud enough to create any disturbance in the con- gregation. But some one in the church happened to see the fight and said, "They are fighting out yonder," causing many of the con- gregation to go out, and services were interrupted. Held not a vio- lation.^' After the minister in charge of a religious meeting dis- misses his congregation, it then ceases to be a congregation, met for religious worship. The acts charged against the defendant occurring after the dismissal do not constitute a violation.^^ "S. V. Stroud, 99 Iowa 16, 68 N. See Teasley v. S., 109 Ga. 282, 34 "W. 450; S. V. Jacobs, 103 N. C. 397, S. E. 577; Com. v. Tay, 170 Mass. « S. E. 404; Williams v. S., 83 Ala. 192, 48 N. B. 1086; P. v. Denby, 108 68, 3 So. 743; S. v. Karnes, 51 Mo. Cal. 54, 40 Pac. 1051; Daniels v. S., App. 295; Johnson v. S., 92 Ala. 110 Ga. 915, 36 S. E. 293 (evidence S4, 9 So. 539; Brown v. S., 46 Ala. not sufficient). See City of St. Louis 183. But see Salter v. S., 99 Ala. v. Babcock, 156 Mo. 148, 56 S. W. 207, 13 So. 535. 732. "aMcBlroy V. S., 25 Tex. 509; Mc- " S. v. Kirby, 108 N. C. 772, 12 Adoo V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 603, 34 S. W. S. E. 1045. 955; Wright v. S., 8 Lea (Tenn.) "S. v. Jones, 53 Mo. 486. See S. 567. V. Snyder, 14 Ind. 429; 2 Thompson "Watson V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 50 S. Trials, § 2182; S. v. Bryson, 82 N. W. 340. C. 578; S. v. Davis, 126 N. C. 1059, 35 "P. V. Markell, 45 N. Y. Supp. S. E. 600. Contra, Freeman v. S. 904, 20 Misc. 149. (Tex. Or.), 44 S. W. 170; Love v. S., '"City of Gallatin v. Tarwater, 143 35 Tex. Cr. 27, 29 S. W. 790; Kinnev Mo. 40, 44 S. W. 750. v. S., 38 Ala. 226; S. v. Lusk, 68 "a Anderson's Law Dictionary. Ind. 265. 292 hughes' criminal law. § 1092: § 1092. Breaking peace by abating nuisance. — It is no defense to- a charge of a breach of the peace that the defendant was trying to abate a nuisance, and that the party causing and maintaining the nuisance was in the wrong.^® § 1093. Slanderous words, no defense. — That the defendant had been informed that just prior to the threatening conduct with which he was charged the complaining party had slandered the wife of the defendant, is no defense, and therefore not admissible in evidence.^" § 1094. Boxing amusement. — On a charge of a breach of the peacer by engaging in a boxing match, it is not competent to show as an excuse that such boxing is a harmless amusement and practiced ia coUeges.^^ Article III. Indictment. § 1095. Eeligious meeting. — ^An indictment charging one with disturbing a congregation and assembly of people "met for religious worship at the southeast corner of the public square," is defective, and charges no offense within the statute, not being a "camp-meeting," •nor "house or place of worship," as defined by statute.^^ § 1096. Disturbing school. — A disturbance which prevents a school from coming together is not "interrupting and disturbing a school"' within the meaning of the statute.^^ § 1097. Profane language. — The complaint alleging that the de- fendant used toward another a profane epithet at the residence of such person, does not state an offense under an ordinance for making an "improper noise, riot, disturbance or breach of the peace on the streets or highways or elsewhere within the city."^* § 1098. Acquittal of one of two. — Where two persons are indicted for an affray, the successful defense of one will operate as an acquittal of both. They are to be tried together, having a common interest.^^ " S. V. White, 18 R. I. 473, 28 Atl. " S. v. City of Camden, 52 N. J. 968. L. 289, 19 Atl. 539. See also Brooks ^"Arnold v. S., 92 Ind. 187; New- v. S., 67 Miss. 577, 7 So. 494; Daniel ton V. S., 94 Ga. 593, 19 S. E. 895. v. City of Athens, 110 Ga. 289, 34 '^S. V. Burnham, 56 Vt. 445, 48 S. E. 1016. Contra, City of Grand Am. R. 801. Rapids v. Williams, 112 Mich. 247, '' S. V. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386. 70 N. W. 547. ^S. V. Spray, 113 N. C. 687, 18 ^'Hawkins v. S., 13 Ga. 324, 58 S. E. 700. See Douglass v. Barber, Am. D. 517; S. v. Wilson, Phil. L. 18 R. I. 459, 28 AtL 805. (N. C.) 237; Ohio v. Foy, Tapp. 7L § 1099 DISORDERLY CONDUCT, 293 § 1099. statutory words — Equivalent. — In setting out the offense in the indictment, the use of the words "commonly assembled" is a ^substantial compliance with the words of the statute, "common re- sort," and the indictment, if otherwise sufficient, is good.^" § 1100. Description of place. — The indictment for fighting in a "public place" need not describe the public place.^^ § 1101. Several acts, one offense. — Committing a breach of the public peace by "tumultuous and offensive carriage, by threatening, quarreling, and challenging to iight," constitute but one offense, and .should be alleged in the same count.^' § 1102. Abusive language in presence. — An indictment charging the use of abusive language in the presence of and concerning an- other is sufficient in the statutory words, and need not allege the lan- guage used by the defendant.^® An information by proper averments charging the defendant with Using abusive language concerning a person named, charged that he used such language in the "presence and hearing" of such person, and did then and there call him a "son of a dog." This sufficiently alleges that the defendant used the ^abusive language "concerning" the person named.^" §1103. Information insufficient. — An information charging -drunkenness, founded upon the report of a policeman without the names of witnesses, and which does not set out that the drunkenness 'of the accused annoyed any one, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction.^^ § 1104. Stating offense. — A charge, under an ordinance, of "cre- ating a disturbance within the corporate limits" of the city, does not sufficiently set out an offense of riotous and disorderly conduct, loud and boisterous cursing and swearing, or the use of vulgar or obscene Contra, 'McClellan v. S., 53 Ala. 640; Foreman v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 477, 20 Cash V. S., 2 Tenn. 198. S. W. 1109; S. v. Parker, 39 Mo. ""Hammond v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 App. 116; S. v. Hooker, 68 Mo. App. S. W. 204. Indictment for former 415. Contra, Walton v. S., 64 Miss, -convictions: P. v. Booth, 121 Mich. 207, 8 So. 171. 131, 79 N. W. 1100. =»Menasco v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 582, "Shelton v. S., 30 Tex. 431. See 25 S. W. 422. ;S. v. Hanley, 47 Vt. 290. »' City of St. Joseph v. Harris, 59 " S. V. Matthews, 42 Vt. 542. Mo. App. 122. "S. V. Fare, 39 Mo. App. 110; 294 hughes' criminal law. § 11G5. language, indecent exposure of the person, or creating a disturbance ■vi^ithin the corporate limits.^^ § 1105. Information insufficient. — An information charging a per- son with using loud, offensive and indecent language in the presence and hearing of others, including both sexes, does not properly charge disorderly conduct under the statute of New Jersey.'' § 1106. Abusive language at dwelling. — Abusive language uttered "at the dwelling-house of another, or the yard or curtilage thereof, or upon any public highway or any other place near the premises" in the presence of a family, is not sufficiently stated in an indictment charging the use of such language in a public highway near the prem- ises of a person named.'* Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1107. Evidence sufficient. — Where the evidence shows that a man and woman, who were riding on a street car with other persons, were intoxicated, and were hugging and kissing each other and using profane language to the extent of attracting the attention of other passengers on the car, including females, this is sufficient to sustain a charge of "indecent or disorderly conduct in the presence of females- on street cars.'"' § 1108. Facts for jury. — The question whether there was sufficient provocation as an excuse for the use of opprobrious words must be determined by the jury, being a question of fact.'* § 1109. Variance — ^Laughing or swearing. — Disturbing a meeting of people for public worship by "laughing and talking" will not sup- port a charge of disturbance by "loud and vociferous exclamations and swearing. «37 ^ S. V. Hettrick, 126 N. C. 977, 35 " Echols v. S., 110 Ga. 257, 34 S. S. E. 125. E. 289; Williams v. S., 105 Ga. 608, ■"Cowell V. S., 63 N. J. L. 523, 31 S. E. 738. 43 Atl. 436. "Lyons v. S., 25 Tex. App. 403, =*S. V. Reed, 76 Miss. 211, 24 So. 8 S. W. 643; S. v. Horn, 19 Ark. 308. 579. See Stratton v. S., 13 Ark. 690; =" Sailors v. S., 108 Ga. 35, 33 S. E. Howard v. S., 87 Ind. 70; S. v. Het- 813. trick, 126 N. C. 977, 35 S. E. 125. § 1110 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. 295 § 1110. Sunday-school is not religious worship. — The information charged the unlawful disturbance of a congregation assembled for religious worship. The evidence conclusively showed it was a Sun- day-school that was disturbed. Held, a fatal variance.^* § 1111. Opium smoking. — The offense of keeping open or main- taining "a place where opium is smoked by others, or to sell or give away opium to be there smoked or otherwise used," is not supported by evidence that the defendant kept a place where opium was smoked, ibut which fails to show who did the smoking — ^the defendant or other persons.*® "Hubbard v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 391, 11 "Wash. 423, 39 Pac. 665; Martin v. 24 S. W. 30, citing Wood v. S., 11 S., 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 234. 24 S. W. 30 (citing Wood v. S., 11 »°P. v. Reed, 61 N. Y. Supp. 520, Tex. App. 318); Layne v. S., 4 Lea 14 N. Y. Cr. 326. (Tenn.) 201. Contra, S. v. Stuth, CHAPTER XXIII. AFFRAY. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1113-1113 II. Matters of Defense, § 1114 III. Indictment, ....§§ 1115-1116 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1117.-111T Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1112. Affray defined. — ^AfErays, as defined by Blackstone (from affraier, to terrify), are the fighting of two or more persons in some public place, to the terror of his majesty's subjects ; for if the fight- ing be in private, it is no affray, but an assault.^ Fighting in a pub- lic road is an affray.^ If one person, by the use of such abusive lan- guage towards another as is calculated and intended to bring on a fight, induces the other to strike him, he is guilty of an affray, though he may be unable to return the blow.' It is an affray for two trav- elers to mutually engage in a fight in a public road, in the presence «f another.* § 1113. Affray includes assault. — Assault and battery may be in- cluded in an affray : an affray being the fighting of two or more per- sons in a public place, to the terror of the people." '4 Bl. Com. 145; Underbill Cr. 22 S. "W. 19. See S. v. Weekly, 29 Ev., § 488; 1 Bish. Cr. L., § 535; 2 Ind. 206;Wilson v. S., 59 Tenn. 278; Hawk. P. C, ch. 63; Taylor v. S., S. v. Davis, 80 N. C. 351, 30 Am. 22 Ala. 15; S. v. Warren, 57 Mo. R. 86. App. 502; Simpson v. S., 13 Tenn. »S. v. Fanning, 94 N. C. 944, 53 356; Champer v. S., 14 Ohio St. 437; Am. R. 653; S. v. Perry, 5 Jones 9. McClellan v. S., 53 Ala. 640; Com. See 4 Bl. Com. 150; S. v. Sumner, V. Simmons, 29 Ky. 614; P. v. Jud- 5 Strob. (S. C.) 53; Hawkins v. S., son, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 1; S. v. Glad- 13 Ga. 322, 58 Am. D. 517. Contra, den, 73 N. C. 150; S. v. Heflin, 8 O'Neill v. S., 16 Ala. 65. Humph. (Tenn.) 84. 'Piper v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. •Pollock V. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 29, 1118. '4 Bl. Com. 145; Fritz v. S., 40 (296) § 1114 AFFRAY. 297 Aeticle II. Matters of Defense. § 1114. Belief of harm, not sufficient. — Mere belief of one of the parties charged with affray that he and his companion were about to suffer great bodily harm, is not sufficient to justify their fighting their antagonist in self-defense." Article III. Indictment. § 1115. Indictment for affray. — The indictment, in setting out the charge of an affray, is sufficient if it allege the fighting to have taken place in a public place, without further description of the place.'' § 1116. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment charging that the defendant "did, in a public place, unlawfully assault and beat, strike, kick and bruise" a person named, which assault so as aforesaid was in an angry and quarrelsome manner, to the disturbance of others, the citizens of said county, with proper conclusion, is sufficient under the Missouri statute.' Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1117. Affray — Evidence insufficient. — The bare fact of two or more persons fighting is not per se ground to presume they fought by agreement; and proof of such fact only will not support a charge for affray.® If the defendant admits the charge of fighting with deadly weapons, it will devolve on him to show that he was justified in his conduct.^" Ind. 18, 1 Green C. R. 557; S. v. Tenn. 519; S. v. Sumner, 5 Strob. Allen, 4 HawTis (N. C.) 356. (S. C.) 53. An inclosed lot visible Contra, Com. v. Perdue, ■ 2 Va. Gas. from the public street, though some 227. distance from the street, is a public «S. v. Harrell, 107 N. C. 944, 12 place: Garwile v. S., 35 Ala. 392. S. E. 439. But see Taylor v. S., 22 Ala. 15. 'Wilson V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) « S. v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586. 278, 1 Green C. R. 550; S. v. "Klum v. S., 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 377. Baker, 83 N. C. 649. See S. v. See Duncan v. Com., 36 Ky. 295. Weekly, 29 Ind. 206; S. v. Billings- " S. v. Barringer, 114 N. C. 840, ley, 43 Tex. 93; Shelton v. S., 30 19 S. B. 275. See Childs v. S., 15 Tex. 431. See S. v. Benthal, 24 Ark. 204. CHAPTEE XXIV. DISOEDEKLY HOUSE. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1119-1130 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1131-ll35 III. Indictment, §§ 1136-1143 IV. Evidence, §§ 1144r-1152 Article I. DEFiNiTioiir and Elements. § 1119. What constitutes disorderly house. — ^A disorderly house is a house in which people abide or to which they resort, disturbing the repose of the neighborhood, or where the conduct of the inmates is injurious to the public morals, health, safety or conscience, and such a house includes disorderly inns, ale-houses, saloons, bawdy houses, gaming houses, stage-plays, booths and stages for rope-dancers, mountebanks and the like; such houses, under the common law, are nuisances.^ But such houses are not common or public nuisances under the common law unless they annoy or disturb the public gen- erally.^ § 1120. Dancing halls — Saloons. — Permitting lewd women to re- sort to a dancing hall where liquors are sold and spend their time ia lewd conduct, such as sitting in the laps of men and hugging and kissing them, is keeping a "disorderly house" under the statute of •S. V. Maxwell, 33 Conn. 259; 536, 17 Atl. 1044; Cahn v. S., 110 Cheek v. Com., 79 Ky. 362; S. v. Ala. 56, 20 So. 380; S. v. Wilson, 93 Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; P. v. N. C. 608. Carey, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 241; 'S. v. Wright, 51 N. C. (6 Jones) Com. V. Goodall, 165 Mass. 588, 43 25; Palfus v. S., 36 Ga. 280; Hickey N. E. 520; Thatcher v. S., 48 Ark. v. S., 53 Ala. 514; Mains v. S., 42 60, 2 S. W. 343; Com. v. Hopkins, Ind. 327, 13 Am. R. 364; S. v. Galley, 133 Mass. 381; 4 Bl. Com. 169; 104 N. C. 858, 17 Am. R. 104, 10 S. B. Beard v. S., 71 Md. 276, 17 Am. R. 455. (298) § 1121 DISORDERLY HOUSE. 299 Texas.' But where such women resort to a saloon only for the pur- pose of buying and drinking beer, it is not a disorderly house.* § 1121. House an habitual resort. — On a charge of keeping a dis- orderly house, it is sufKcient that the defendant allowed his house to become the habitual resort of drunkards, thieves and prostitutes at late and unreasonable hours at night. "• Noise or disturbance is not an essential element of the offense of keeping a disorderly house." § 1122. House for prostitution. — The term "disorderly house" at common law includes every house that is so kept as directly to disturb public order at the time, or tend to the corruption of public morals and the ultimate disturbance of the general good order of the com- munity. A house kept as a place of public resort for the purpose of prostitution or other immoral conduct is a disorderly house.'' § 1123. House attracting idlers. — Where a house is so conducted as to attract and bring together idle, dissolute or disorderly persons, it is a "disorderly house," and the disorderly conduct may be either inside or outside the house.' § 1124. Resort for criminals. — A house of public resort, where criminal offenses are habitually committed, is a "disorderly house,", and a common or public nuisance.^ § 1125. Tents, boats, halls. — The offense of keeping a disorderly house may be committed not only in a dwelling-house, but in other "Ahr V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 31 S. W. 102; S. v. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407; 657. King v. P., 83 N. Y. 587. *Harmes v. S., 26 Tex. App. 190, 'Com. v. Goodall, 165 Mass. 594, 8 Am. R. 470, 9 S. W. 487. But see 43 N. E. 520; S. v. Galley, 104 N. C. Couch V. S., 24 Tex. 559; Brown v. 858, 17 Am. R. 704, 10 S. B. 455; S., 2 Tex. App. 189. Thatcher v. S., 48 Ark. 60, 2 S. W. "Com. v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; 343; S. v. Wilson, 93 N. C. 608. Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. »Cahn v. S., 110 Ala. 56, 20 So. 1044, 8 Am. C. R. 173; S. v. Young, 380; S. v. Mathews, 2 Dev. & B. 96 Iowa 262, 65 N. W. 160; S. v. (N. C.) 424; S. v. Pierce, 65 Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; Lord v. Iowa 85, 21 N. W. 195; Tanner v. S., 16 N. H. 325. See Com. v. Good- Albion, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 121, 40 Am. D. all, 165 Mass. 588, 43 N. E. 520. 337; Hall's Case, 1 Mod. 76; S. v. 'Com. v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; S. v. Kneffler v. Com., 94 Ky. 359, 22 S. Webb, 25 Iowa 235. W. 446, 15 Ky. L. 176; Beard v. S., ' =Hickey v. S., 53 Ala. 514; P. v. 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 1044, 17 Am. R. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 16 N. W. 536; Price v. S., 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 442; Cheek v. Com., 79 Ky. 359; S. 128; S. V. Williams, 30 N. J. L. v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. 463; Brown V. S., 49 N. J. L. 61, 7 Atl. 340. 300 hughes' criminal law. § 1126 buildings or places, such as a tent, boat, dance-hall, saloon, store, shop or lodging-rooms of a house.^" § 1126. Gaining house. — ^A common gaming house is in legal con- templation a disorderly house. The defendant, in keeping a house where he permitted divers persons to habitually assemble and engage in betting, is guilty of keeping a disorderly house.^^ The defendant kept a room to which persons commonly resorted for the purpose of betting upon horse races, run at various places throughout the country: Held to be a disorderly house under the statute.^^ And such a place is a nuisance at common law, because it encourages per- sons to meet there and engage in gaming in violation of the law.^^* § 1127. Selling intoxicating liquor. — Where the keeper of a house is in the habit of selling intoxicating liquors on his premises unlaw- fully, he will be guilty of keeping a disorderly house, and it can make no difference that he may be liable to indictment for each specific sale so unlawfully made.^^ The keeper of a saloon or dramshop where intoxicating liquors are sold, though under a license, will be guilty of keeping a disorderly house if he permits idle, dissolute, drunken or other disorderly persons to collect in or about his premises and disturb or annoy the people of the community by swearing, curs- ing, fighting, or by any other disorderly conduct.^* » Killman v. S., 2 Tex. App. 222, " Haring v. S., 51 N. J. L. 386, 17 28 Am. R. 432 (tent); S. v. Mullen, Atl. 1079; S. v. Bailey, 21 N. H. 343; 35 Iowa 199 (boat); Com. v. Car- Price v. S., 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 128. doze, 119 Mass. 210 (dance hall); See Hawkins v. Lutton, 95 Wis. 492, Com. V. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356 (sa- 70 N. W. 483; Cahn v. S., 110 Ala. loon); S. V. Robertson, 86 N. C. 628; 56, 20 So. 380.' Hickey v. S., 53 Ala. 514; S. v. "a Cheek v. Com., 79 Ky. 359; P. Bertheol, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 474, 39 v. WeithofC, 51 Mich. 203, 47 Am. Am. D. 442; S. v. Powers, 36 Conn. R. 557, 4 Cr. L. Mag. 682, 16 N. W. 77; S. V. Garity, 46 N. H. 61; P. v. 442. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 681. See Com. " Parker v. S., 61 N. J. L. 308, 39 v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181; Clifton v. Atl. 651; Brown v. S., 49 N. J. L. S., 53 Ga. 241; S. v. Main, 31 Conn. 61, 7 Atl. 340; Wilson v. Com., 12 572. B. Hon. (Ky.) 2; Henry v. Com., "Kneffler v. Com., 94 Ky. 360, 22 9 B. Hon. (Ky.) 361. But see Jar- S. V\r. 446, 15 Ky. L. 176; McClain mone v. S. (N. J. L.), 45 Atl. 1032. T. S., 49 N. J. L. 471, 9 Atl. 681. "Com. v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; .See also P. v. Weithoft, 51 Mich. Com. v. Wallace, 143 Mass. 88, 9 203, 16 N. W. 442, 47 Am. R. 557, 4 N. E. 5; Price v. S., 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. Cr. L. Mag. 682; Haring v. S., 51 128; Delaney v. S., 51 N. J. L. 37, 16 N. J. L. 386, 17 Atl. 1079; Cheek v. Atl. 267; Garrison v. S., 14 Ind. Com., 79 Ky. 359 (pool rooms); 287; S. v. Foley, 45 N. H. 466; S. King V. P., 83 N. Y. 587; Lord v. S., v. Bertheol, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 474, 16 N. H. 330, 41 Am. D. 729. 39 Am. D. 442; S. v. Robertson, 86 § 1128 DISORDEKLY HOUSE. 301 § 1128. Continuing offense. — The keeping of a disorderly house is a continuing offense, unless made otherwise by statute.*" §1129. Manager or agent liable. — Any person who manages or controls, or in any manner assists as agent or servant in conducting a disorderly house, is alike guilty with the owner as nrincipal.*' § 1130. Husband and wife liable. — A wife may be indicted to- gether with her husband, and be condemned with him for keeping a bawdy house, for this is an offense as to the government of the house, in which the wife has a principal share.*^ And where the husband is charged as owner with knowingly permitting a place to be kept as a disorderly house, it is no defense that the house is owned by his wife.*' Article II. Matters of DsFEifSE. § 1131. Preventing disorderly conduct. — The fact that the defend- ant endeavored to prevent disorderly conduct, breaches of the peace and the like, in or about his premises, is no defense to a charge of keeping a disorderly house.*' § 1132. License no defense. — That a person has a license to retail spirituous liquors will not warrant him in keeping a nuisance by per- mitting evil-disposed persons to congregate in or about his place of business and engage in blackguarding, swearing, fighting, etc.^" N. C. 628; S. v. Garity, 46 N. H. 261; S. v. Dow, 21 Vt. 484. See 61; Wilson v. Com., 12 B. Mon. Jacob! v. S., 59 Ala. 71; S. v. Mar- (Ky.) 2; S. v. Pierce, 65 Iowa 85, 21 chant, 15 R. I. 539, 9 Atl. 902; Carl- N. W. 195; Cable v. S., 8 Blackf. ton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 213; (Ind.) 531; U. S. v. Elder, 4 Cranch Sparks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 508; S. V. Mullikin, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 1120. 261. "1 Hawk. P. C. 12; Reg. v. War- ">Reed v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. ren, 16 Ont. 590; Com. v. Hop- 1085; Com. v. Bessler, 97 Ky. 498, kins, 133 Mass. 3^1, 43 Am. R. 527; 30 S. W. 1012, 17 Ky. L. 357. Hunter v. S., 14 Ind. App. 683, 43 "Com. V. Maroney, 105 Mass. 467; N. E. 452. Stevens v. P., 67 111. 587; S. v. »' Willis v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 148, 29 Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; Clifton S. W. 787. V. S., 53 Ga. 241; Ter. v. Stone, 2 "Com. v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356 Dak. 155, 4 N. W. 697; S. v. M'Greg- Cable v. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 531 or, 41 N. H. 407; Harlow v. Com., Price v. S., 96 Ala. 1, 11 So. 128 11 Bush (Ky.) 610; P. v. Brwin, 4 S. v. Schaffer, 74 Iowa 704, 39 N. Den. (N. Y.) 129; Engeman v. S., W. 89; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 482. 54 N. J. L. 257, 23 Atl. 679; Smith ^° S. v. Mullikin, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) V S., 6 Gill (Md.) 425; Hipes v. S., 260. 73 Ind. 39; Com. v. Burke, 114 Mass. 302 hughes' criminal law. § 1135^ § 1133. Owner, when not liable. — If the owner, at the time he leases his house to a tenant, does not know the purpose for which the house is to be kept, and afterwards learns that it is kept for an unlaw- ful purpose, he can not be held criminally liable merely because he continues to collect the rents and makes no remonstrance against the house being kept for such unlawful purpose.^^ § 1134. Kept for lawful purpose. — If the purpose of the house be not necessarily injurious to society, the keeping of such a house (bowling alley) is never criminal, though kept for gain, unless it be made so by the manner in which it is conducted. One may use his house for any purpose which, in itself, is not necessarily hurtful to the community. ^^ § 1135. Disorderly conduct in private house. — ^Disorderly conduct in a private house, such as fighting or gaming, does not make the house a disorderly house unless such conduct in some manner annoys the public, but otherwise if the house is a public place, such as an inn.^^ Article III. Indictment. § 1136. Description of premises. — In charging the keeping of a disorderly house, the indictment need not describe the lot or block on which it is located, or state the name of the house.^* Stating the offense in the language of the statute is sufficient, without stating any particular acts of idleness, fornication, etc.^*^ § 1137. "Lucre or gain" immaterial. — The indictment charging the keeping of a disorderly house need not allege that it was kept for 'lucre and gain," and any attempted averment of keeping for such purpose may be treated as surplusage.^" " S. V. Williams, 30 N. J. L. 102; (N. C.) 424; Hunter v. Com., 2 S. S. v. Pearsall, 43 Iowa 630; Camp- & R. (Pa.) 298. See also Com. v. bell V. S., 55 Ala. 89; S. v. Leach, Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; S. v. Haines, 50 Mo. 535; S. v. Frazier, 79 Me. 30 Me. 65; Rex v. Moore, 3 B. &.Ad. 95, 8 Atl. 347; P. v. Saunders, 29 184, 23 E. C. L. 52; S. v. Wilson, 93 Mich. 273. See Crofton v. S., 25 N. C. 608; Bloomhuff v. S., 8 Blackf. Ohio St. 249; S. v. Abrahams, 6 (Ind.) 205; S. v. Buckley, 5 Harr. Iowa 117, 71 Am. D. 399. (Del.) 508. ^S. V. Hall, 32 N. J. L. 158; P. ^ Sprague v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. V. Sergeant, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 139; S. W. 837. V. Haines, 30 Me. 65. See Cahn v. "a Howard v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. S., 110 Ala. 56, 20 So. 380; P. v. 595. See Shutze v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 Klock, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 275; Beard S. W. 918. V. S., 71 Md. 275, 15 Am. R. 536, 17 ^ S. v. Parks, 61 N. J. L,. 438, 39 Atl. 1044; Berry v. P., 77 N. Y. Atl. 1023; Com. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 588, 1 N. Y. Cr. 57. 225. ^S. V. Mathews, 2 Dev. & B. L. § 1138 DISORDERLY HOUSE. 303 § 1138. Duplicity — When not. — Where a statute in the same gen- eral description enumerates different ways of keeping a disorderly house, subject to the same punishment, they may all be Joined in the same count in the indictment without being bad for duplicity.^' § 1139. Opium — ^Keeper of place. — In an information charging a person with being present at a "place, house, building or tenement" where and when implements for smoking opium are found, it is not necessary to allege who was the keeper of the place, not being an essential element of the offense as defined by statute.^^ § 1140. Owner or tenant material. — Under a statute against the keeping of a disorderly house by the "owner, lessee, or tenant," an indictment which fails to aver that the defendant was the "owner, lessee or tenant" of the house is not good.*® § 1141. lewd women in theatre. — ^An indictment which sets out, by proper averments, that the defendant owned and was the manager of a certain theatre and dance house where intoxicating liquors were sold, and that the defendant kept and employed in such theatre lewd women and prostitutes, sufficiently states an offense, under the statute of Texas.** § 1142. House for prostitution. — The indictment charged that the defendant was the owner of a certain house, and that he did "know- ingly permit the keeping in said house of a disorderly house, to wit, a house kept for prostitution, and where prostitutes were permitted to resort and reside for the purpose of plying their vocation." Held sufficient.^" § 1143. Charging nuisance — Defective. — The statute of Washing- ton provides : "All houses used as a place of resort where women are employed to draw custom, dance, or for purposes of prostitution, are nuisances." The information charged that the defendant, on a day ''"Willis V. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 148, 29 in the meaning of the statute: S. W. 787. See Com. v. Myers, 21 Mitchell v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 311, 30 Ky. L. 1770, 56 S. W. 412. S. W. 810. " Com. V. Kane, 173 Mass. 477, 53 " Callaghan v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 536, N. E. 919. 38 S. W. 188. '^ Lamar v. S., 30 Tex. App. 693, =° Mansfield v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 18 S. W. 788. A servant taking care S. W. 901; Swaggart v. Ter., 6 Okla. of the house for the owner is not 344, 50 Pac. 96. the "owner, lessee or tenant" with- 304 hughes' criminal law. § II44 stated, kept a certain house, -which "was then used as a place of re- sort where women are employed to draw custom, and to dance." Held defective in not alleging that women were employed to draw custom and dance at the time the house is alleged to have been kept by the defendant.^^ Article IV. Evidence. § 1144. Keeper of house. — On the trial of a charge for keeping a disorderly house, it must be shown that the defendant in some manner had the management or control of the house, as alleged in the indict- ment.^^ Before a conviction can be sustained for "keeping a dis- orderly house," it must be shown that the defendant was in some manner connected with the house in question ; that she purchased the house and put it into the possession of some girls, and did not remain there afterwards, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.^^ § 1145. Reputation of house. — Evidence of the general reputation of the house is competent as tending to prove that it is a disorderly house.^* It need not be shown that the house charged with being disorderly had acquired the reputation of being a disorderly house. It is sufficient if it is, in fact, such a house.^® That a house bears the reputation of being a disorderly house, is not of itself sufficient to make it such.** § 1146. Beputation of inmates. — Evidence of the character of the inmates and frequenters of a house is competent as tending to prove "S. V. Brown, 7 Wash. 10, 34 W. 779; Drake v. S., 14 Neb. 536. 17 Pac. 132. N. W. 117; S. v. West, 46 La. 1009, ^Com. V. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356; 15 So. 418; S. v. Bresland, 59 Minn. King V. S., 17 Fla. 183; Rabb v. S. 281, 61 N. W. 450; O'Brien v. P., 28 (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 1000; P. v. Mich. 213. See Shaffer v. S., 87 Md. Ah Ho, 1 Idaho 691; Dralte v. S., 124, 39 Atl. 313. Contra, Beard v. 14 Neb. 536, 17 N. W. 117; Vowells S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 104*4, 8 Am. V. Com., 83 Ky. 193; Toney v. S., C. R. 174; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 20 60 Ala. 97; Nelson v. Ter., 5 Okla. Am. R. 401, 45 N. W. 545; S. v. 512, 49 Pac. 920. Boardman, 64 Me. 523, 1 Am. C. R. »" Morse v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 352; Toney v. S., 60 Ala. 97; Handy 989; Bindernagle v. S., 60 N. J. L. v. S., 63 Miss. 207, 56 Am. R. 803; 307, 37 Atl. 619. See Howard v. P. Heflin v. S., 20 N. J. L. 151. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 595 (permitting). '"Herzinger v. S., 70 Md. 278, 17 " Hogan V. S., 76 Ga. 82; Betts v. Atl. 81; S. v. Maxwell, 33 Conn. S., 93 Ind. 375; S. v. Brunell, 29 259. Wis. 435 ; S. v. Hendricks, 15 Mont. =« S. v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; 194, 39 Pac. 93, 48 Am. R. 666; Drake v. S., 14 Neb. 535, 17 N. W. Golden v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 143, 29 S. 117. §11147 DISORDEBLY HOUSEi 305i that it is a-dtsoiiderly hoTJge, and this may be. shown byigeneialiepQ- tation.''' And the weight of authority maintains that' , not i.malyj the' reputation of the inmates, but also of the house itself, may be estab- lished by general repute.^* fill!?. Ifanguage of iniaates,—- On the trial of one -ebiairged. witfe Iseepi'Dg a disorderly house, the language apd general condfllct ol-thfr' inmates and frequenters may be shown in evidence.^" §1148. SiBlliiig liquor competent. — Evidence that the defendant was invthe habit of selling intoxicating liquors at his house, is compe- tepit as tending to prove the keeping of a disorderly house.*" § 114?, Annoyance essential.^— On a charge of keeping a disorderly house, it is sufficient if the proof shows that persons passing by the house on a highway were annoyed.*^ If the disorderly conduct or aots Wiould tend to annoy the ©ntiire neighborhood,. this is fSufficient to make, the house a disorderly house, although the proof shows 'but one person was actually annoyed or disturbed.*^ §1150.. Surplus averments. — It is necessary to prove matters of description only when thp averment of ' which the deseriptive matter forms a part is material. Matters alleged in the iBdiGtment wihick* "Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. Pac. 920; Sprague v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 1044, 8 Am. C. R. 174; Com. v. 44 S. W. 837; Com. v. Murr, 7 Pa. Clark, 145 Mass. 251, 13 N. B. 888; Sup. Ct. 391, 42 W. N. C. 263 p P. V. Russell, 110 Mich. 46, 67 N. Hogan v. S., 76 Ga. 82; King v. S., W. 1099; S. V. Hendricks, 15 Mont. 17 Fla. 183. 194, 39 Pac. 93, 48 Am. R. 666; S. =' S. v. Caring, 75 Me. 591; S. v. V, Boardman, 64 Me. 523; Toney v. Toombs, 79 Iowa 741, 45 N. W. 300; S., 60 Ala. 97; Roop v. S., 58 N. J. Berry v. P., 77 N. Y. 588, 1 N. Y. L. 479, 34 Atl. 749; Betts v. S., 93 Cr. 57; Com. v. Sliney, 126 Mass. Ind. 375; S. v. West, 46 La. 1009, 49; Harwood v. P., 26 N. Y. 190, 84: 15 So. 418; S. v. Bean, 21 Mo. 267; Am. D. 175; Toney v. S., 60 Ala. 97; P. V. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 681; S. v. Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Am. R. Lyon, 39 Iowa 379; King v. S., 17 536, 17 Atl. 1044; Bindernagle v. S., Fla. 183; Morris v. S., 38 Tex. 603; 60 N. J. L. 307, 37 Atl. 619. Sprague v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. '"Derby v. S., 60 N. J. L. 258, 37 837; Howard v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. Atl. 614. 595. See Dailey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 "Hackney v. S., 8 Ind. 494; S. v. S. W. 823. Wilson, 93 N. C. 608; Com. v. Daven- ""P. V. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127, 42 port, 2 Allen (Mass.) 299. N. W. 937; Ter. v. Bowen, 2 Idaho "Com. v. Hopkins, 133 Mass. 381, 607, 23 Pac. 82; S. v. Mack, 41 La. 43 Am. R. 527; Price v. S., 96 Ala. 1079, 6 So. 808; P. v. Saunders, 29 5, 11 So. 128. See S. v. Robertson, Mich. 269, 1 Am. C. R. 348; Sylves- 86 N. C. 628; Hackney v. S., 8 Ind.. ter v. S., 42 Tex. 496, 1 Am. C. R. 494. 350; Nelson v. Ter., 5 Okla. 512, 49 hughes' c. l.— 20 306 hughes' criminal law. § 1151 are not material to the offense as defined by statute may be rejected as surplusage.*^ § 1151. Statute aMimmg common law. — ^A statute leveled against disorderly houses does not necessarily repeal the common law by im- plication, unless the legislative intent to alter or repeal is clearly ex- pressed. The statute may be in affirmance of the common law, adding new regulations or remedies.** ^ 1152. Authority to suppress disorderly house. — The legislature may lawfully empower cities and villages to pass ordinances against the keeping of gaming and other disorderly houses. *° And the enact- ment of such ordinances by cities or other municipalities does not sus- pend and render inoperative the general law of the state on the same subject, nor of the common la"w.** " S. V. Dame, 60 N. H. 479, 4 Am. v. Gustin, 57 Mich. 407, 24 N. W. -C. R. 444; Rex v. May, 1 Doug. 156; Huber v. S., 25 Ind. 175. 193. « Rogers v. P., 9 Colo. 450, 59 Am. "Com. V. Chemical Works, 16 R. 146, 12 Pac. 483; Wong v. Astoria, Cray (Mass.) 231; Parker v. S., 61 13 Or. 538, 11 Pac. 295. TJ. J. L. 308, 39 Atl. 651; Com. v. « Seibold v. P.. 86 111. 33; P. v. ■Goodall, 165 Mass. 588, 43 N. E. Mallette, 79 Mich. 600, 44 N. W. 962; 520; P. V. Sadler, 97 N. Y. 146; S. v. Wlster, 62 Mo. 592; Com, v. Vanderworker v. S., 13 Ark. 700. Hunter, 19 Ky. L. 1109, 41 S. W.' See P. V. Goldman, 1 Idaho 714; P. 284. CHAPTEE XXV. DUELING. Art. I. What Constitutes OflEense, §§ 1153-1154 II. Matters of Defense, § 1155 AiiTicLE I. What Constitutes Offense. § 1153. Sending challenge. — The sending of a written or verbal challenge to another to fight a duel is an act tending toward a breach of the peace, and is an indictable ofEense, though no duel be fought.^ § 1154. Killing as result. — If the fighting of a duel results in killing, then all participants as principals, seconds, spectators or others aiding, abetting or encouraging such duel are guilty of mur- der.^ Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1155. No offense. — A citizen of the state of Tennessee who acted as second in a duel fought by two other persons of Tennessee, in the state of Arkansas, did not violate the constitutional provision of the former state which forbids the fighting of a duel or aiding or abetting therein, it not appearing that the accused did any act in Tennessee aiding the duel, or had any knowledge that such duel was to take place.' M Bl. Com. 150, 199. See 2 Bish. Cr. L., § 324; Rex v. Rice, 3 East Cr. L., § 143. 581. 'S. V. Christian, 66 Mo. 138; Un- 'S. v. Du Bose, 88 Tenn. 753, 13 derhill Cr. Ev., § 483; 1 McClain S. W. 1088. (307) CHAPTEE XXVI. COHrCEALED WEAPONS. Aet. I. What Constitutes Offense, §§ 1156-1161 IJ. Matters of Defense, §§ 116?-117S III. Indictment, §§ 1174-1179 IV. Evidence, §§ 1180-1184: Article I. What Constitutes Offense. § 1156. Going anne4, offense. — The offense of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the pub^ lie peace by terrifying the good people of the land.^ § 1157. Conceialmeiit — ^In hand basket. — -Carrying a pistol in a hand basket or handrsachel in the hand, or suspended from the shoulr ders by a strap, is carrying a concealed weapon." But carrying- a pistol in a wagon, not on the person, or having it in a coat which is lying on the wagon, is not a violation.^ §1158. What constitutes the offense. — ^''Any person having or carrying about his person, unless in an open manner and fully ex- posed to view, any pistol (except horseman's pistol), shall be guiltyof a misdemeanor." Carrying a pistol in a covered basket on one's arm. '4 Bl. Com. 149; Galvin v. S., 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 295; S. v. Huntley, 25 N. C. (3 Ired.) 420, 40 Am. D. 416. = Difley v. S., 86 Ala. 66, 5 So. 576; Willis v. S., 105 Ga. 633, 32 S. K. 155; S. V. McManus, 89 N. C. 555; Warren V. S., 94 Ala. 79, 10 So. 838; Garrett v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 285; Com. v. Sturgeon, 18 Ky. L. 613, 37 S. W. 680; Ramsey v. S., 91 Ala. 29, 8 So. 568; Boles V. S., 86 Ga. 255, 12 S. B. 361, 8 Am. C. R. 126; Woodward v. S., 5 Tex. App. 296. "Cunningham v. S., 76 Ala. 88; Cathey v. S., 23 Tex. App. 492, 5 S. W. 137; Com. v. Sturgeon, 18 Ky. L. 613, 37 S. W. 680; George v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 386; Ladd v. S.. 92 Ala. 58, 9 So. 401. But- see Barnes v. S., 89 Ga. 316, 15 S. B. 313. (308) f 1159 CONCEAtiED ■WEAPONS. SO^ ikyt'for the pu'rpose of transportation only, but for convenience of use ^nd access, and to evade the law, is a violation of the statute.* § 1189. CTtotinuing offense. — Carrying a concealed weapon is, in itfe nature, a continuing offense, and where the defendant exhibited a pistol at two different places on the same evening, it is but. one offense; tod the prosecution may show such different times and places in evi- *nce.° § 1160. Concealment essential. — The fact of the concealment of the weapon is material, and must be proved in order to support a conviction." A pistol partly concealed in a pocket or about the <;l6thes is a "concealed weapon" within the meaning of the statute.'' A' concealed weapon within the meaning of the law is one so carried that the persons near enough otherwise to see can not see it, when meeting the accused in ordinary social and commercial intercourse.* § 1161. Prohibitory statute, valid.— A statute which prohibits the •carrying of a dirk, sword-cane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket-pistol; either publicly or privately, is not invalid. The carrying of such Weapons may be absolutely prohibited under any and all circum- staiices, they not being such arms in the use of which a soldier should be trained in the defense of his liberties as well as his country.® Akticle II. Matters of Defense. § 1162. Weapon in pieces. — The fact that the cylinder of the pistol was separated from the rest of the firearm is no defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, there being nothing to prevent * Boles v. S., 86 Ga. 255, 12 S. E. iS. K 563. See S. v. Bixon, 114 N. 361, 8 Am. C. R. 126; DIffey v. S., C. 850, 19 S. B. 364; Owen v. S., 86 Ala. 66i 5 So. 576. See S. v. 31 Ala. 387; Smith v. S., 96 Ala. 66, Ju^y, 60 Ind. 138. 11 So. 7I; Carr v. S., 34 Ark;. 448,- "Etress v. S., 88 Ala. 191, 7 So. 36 Am. E. 15; Ramsey v. S., 91 Ala. 49; Dean v. S., 98 Ala. 71, 13 So. 29, 8 So. 568; Underbill Cr. Bv., SI8; Smith V. S., 79 Ala. 257; Ladd § 484; Mayherry v. S., 107 Ala. 64, V. S., 92 Ala. 58, 9 So. 401. 18 So. 219; Driggers v. S., 123 Ala. « Ridenour v. S., 65 Ind. 411. 46, 26 So. 512. 'S. V. Bias, 37 La. 259; Sutton 'Andrews v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) V, S., 12 Pla. 135. But see Barnard 165, 1 Green C. R. 475. See Daven- v. S., 73 Ga. 803. port v. S., 112 Ala. 49, 20 So. 971; •Street v. S., 67 Ala. 87; Sutton S. v. Speller, 86 N. C, 697, 14 Am. v. S., 12 Fla. 135; S. v. Lilly, 116 R. 246. N. C. 1049, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 407, 21 310 hughes' criminal law. § 1163, an easy adjustment of the parts of the weapon ;^" nor need the pistol be loaded.^"^ § 1163. Carrying on premises — ^Exception. — A landlord who has leased his premises, and which is occupied by his tenant, can not claim exemption from prosecution for carrying concealed weapon under the exception permitting one to carry concealed weapons on his own premises.^^ The tenant is the owner of the premises within the meaning of the law.'^^ A mere servant employed as a laborer on the premises of another does not come within the exception of the statute permitting the owner to carry weapons on his own premises.^* A contractor or person supervising the erection of a building is not. within such exception.^* A statute permitting one to carry concealed- weapons on his own premises will include a public road running, through his premises.^' § 1164. In own house, no defense. — In Alabama it has been held go defense to a charge of carrying a weapon concealed about the per- son that the defendant /was in his own home.^° § 1165. Traveler may carry. — Where one's business is in different counties, requiring him to be going nearly all the time from his home to his different places of business, he is a traveler within the meaning of the law permitting travelers to carry weapons.^' Or going to mar- ket a day's journey makes one a traveler.^* Or one who goes a short distance on a railway train, seeking employment, is a "traveler."^" Going from one's temporary residence to his permanent residence ia "■Hutchinson v. S., 62 Ala. 3, 34 "S. v. Terry, 93 N. C. 585, 53 Am. R. 1; Redus v. S., 82 Ala. 53, Am. R. 472. 2 So. 713; Crawford v. S., 94 Ga. "Kinkead v. S., 45 Ark. 536; S. 772, 21 S. E. 992; Com. v. Murphy, v. Deyton, 119 N. C. 880, 26 S. E. 166 Mass. 171, 44 N. B. 138; Under- 159. See S. v. Perry, 120 N. C. , wood V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 777. 580, 26 S. E. 915, 1008. "aS. V. Bollis, 73 Miss. 57, 19 So. '"Ball v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 99; S. V. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73; S. v. 627; Ross v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 28 S.- Duzan, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 31. W. 199; S. v. Hewell, 90 N. C. 705. "Zallner v. S., 15 Tex. App. 23; "Dunston v. S. (Ala.), 27 So. Fannin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 S. W. 333. 280. "Burst v. S., 89 Ind. 133; Bice "Jones V. S., 55 Ark. 186, 17 S. v. S., 10 Tex. App. 288. W. 719 ; Brannon v. S., 23 Tex. App. " Waddell v. S., 37 Tex. 356. 428, 5 S. W. 132. See Campbell v. "Lockett v. S., 47 Ala. 42. See S., 28 Tex. App. 44, 11 S. W. 832; Wilson v. S., 68 Ala. 41; Davis v. Sanders v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 50 S. W. S., 45 Ark. 359; McGuirk v. S., 64 348. Miss. 209, 1 So. 103. § 1166 CONCEALED WEAPONS, 311 another county makes him a "traveler."^" Or returning to one's home from a distance, carrying a concealed weapon, makes him a "traveler."^^ § 1166. Carrying weapon openly. — A weapon is not concealed about the person if it can be seen without inspection or examination for that purpose by persons who happen to meet the person carrying the weapon passing on the street or highway, or who happen to meet him in a social way.^^ § 1167. Merchant purchasing-^For delivery. — ^A merchant, by purchasing a pistol as a sample and carrying it in his pocket a short distance, to pack it with other goods he bought at the same place, commits no offense.^** The defendant, by carrying a pistol to a person, to whom he has sold it, commits no offense.^* § 1168. Self-defense — When. — Where it is clearly shown that arms are worn bona fide to ward off or meet imminent and threatened danger to life or limb, or great bodily harm, circumstances essential to make out a case of self-defense or defense of others, it will be a good defense on a charge of carrying concealed weapons.^'' =" Campbell v. S., 28 Tex. App. 44, 688; Short v. S., 25 Tex. App. 379,. 11 S. W. 832; Carr v. S., 34 Ark. 8 S. W. 281; Maupin v. S., 89 Tenn. 448; Eslava v. S., 49 Ala. 357. See 367, 17 S. W. 1038; Sudduth v. S., Eubanks v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 70 Miss. 250, 11 So. 680; Scott v. 973. S., 113 Ala. 64, 21 So. 425. See "Impson V. S. (Tex.), 19 S. W. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 485. Contra, 677. See Lott v. S., 122 Ind. 393, S. v. Speller, 86 N. C. 697. See the 24 N. E. 156; Blackwell v. S., 34 following cases relating to self de- Tex. Cr. 476, 31 S. W. 380. fense: Strother v. S., 74 Miss. 447, '= Smith V. S., 96 Ala. 68, 11 So. 21 So. 147; O'Neal v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 71; Plummer v. S., 135 Ind. 308, 34 42, 22 S. W. 25; Skeen v. S., 34 Tex. N. E. 968; Williams v. Com., 18 Ky. Cr. 308, 30 S. W. 554; S. v. Barnett, L. 663, 37 S. W. 680; Com. v. Stur- 34 W. Va. 74, 11 S. E. 735; Dllling- geon, 18 Ky. L. 613, 37 S. W. 680; ham v. S. (Tex.), 32 S. W. 771; . Killet V. S., 32 Ga. 292; Howe v. S., Dooley v. S., 89 Ala. 90, 8 So. 528; 110 Ala. 54, 20 So. 451; Sutton v. Com. v. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171, 44 S., 12 Fla. 135; Underbill Cr. Bv., N. B. 138; Brown v. S. (Tex. Cr.), § 484. 29 S. W. 1079; Avant v. S. (Tex. '=S. V. Gilbert, 87 N. C. 527; S. v. Cr.), 25 S. W. 1073; Polk v. S., 62 Brodnax, 91 N. C. 543; Underwood Ala. 237; Dooley v. S., 89 A*la. 90, V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 777; Un- 8 So. 528; Day v. S., 5 Sneed derhill Cr. Bv., § 484. (Tenn.) 495; Brown v. S., 72 Ga. ^Snider v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. 211; S. v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, W. 84. 14 S. B. 9; Tipler v. S., 57 Miss. 685; "Andrews v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) Bell v. S., 100 Ala. 78, 14 So. 763. 165; Bailey v. Com., 11 Bush (Ky.) 312 hughes' criminal law. §'ll6(9 §1169. Not in habit of carryings— Wo defense,^-That the defend- ant had not been in the habit of carrying his pistol concealed is no answer to the positive proof that he did carry a weapon concealed al a certain time.^' § 1170. Officer — ^When may carry. — A sheriff or other officer, while actually engaged: searching for or arresting a criminal or executing the process of the court, may lawfully carry arms, but only while actually engaged in the discharge of his duty.^'' § 1171. Innocent motive, no defense. — ^Where the intent is not made a material element of the offense as defined by statute, an inno- cent motive or intention in carrying a concealed weapon is no de- fense.^* § 1172. Right to bear arms. — ^TJnder the constitutional provision giving the right to the people "to keep and bear arms" will be in- cluded such weapons as soldiers should be trained with, such as the rifle of all descriptions, the shotgun, the musket and repeater; and the pistol designated as a revolver may or may not fall within the same class, according to the character of the weapon, to be settled by the evidence. The repeater is a soldier's weapon.^" The constitu- tional provision of the United States that "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," has no application to state governments, and does not restrain the power of the states to regulate the carrying of arms.°" » Oliver v. S., 106 Ga. 142, 32 S. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 42, 22 S. W. 25; E. 18. Strahan v. S., 68 Miss. 347, 8 So. "Gayle v. S., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 466; 844; Goldsmith v. S., 99 Ga. 253, S, V. Hayne, 88 N. C. 625; S. v. 25 S. B. 624. See S. v. Brown, 125 -Wisdom, 84 Mo. 177; Irvine v. S., N. C. 704, 34 S. E. 549. 18 Tex. App. 51; S. v. Williams, 72 =" Andrews v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) Miss. 992, 18 So. 486; Miller v. S., 165, 1 Green C. R. 475, 8 Am. C. R. 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 449; Underbill Cr. 8; English v. S., 35 Tex. 473, 14 Ev., § 486. See O'Neal v. S., 32 Tex. Am. R. 374j See. Aymette v. S., 2 Cr. 44 22 S. W. 25; Corley v. S. Humph. (Tenn.) 154. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 975. ^Andrews v. S., 3 Heisk. (TeHn.) "S. V. Martin, 31 La. 849; Riden- 165, 1 Green C. R. 467; PresSer v. our V. S., 65 Ind. 411; S. v. Dixon, Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580. 114 N. C. 850, 19 S. E. 364; Reynolds See Walburn v. Ter., 9 Okla. 23, 59 •V. S., 1 Tex. App. 616; Cutsinger v. Pac. 972. Com., 7 Bush (Ky.) 392; O'Neil v. § 1173 CONCEALED WEAPONS. 3l8 § 1173. Forfeiture of weapdn. — A statute providing for forfeiture of a weapon as a penalty for carrying concealed veapons is unconsti- tutional.'^ Article III. iNfiiCTMENT. , § 1174. Concealment essential. — Concealment is an essential ele- ment of the offense of carrying concealed weapons, and must be al- leged in the ili'dictinent.'^ §1175. Carrying pistol. — In charging the carrying a pistol as a concealed weapon, it is not necessary to allege in the indictment that the pistol was loaded.*' § 1176. Revolver loaded essential. — On a charge of drawing a re- volver on a person, the indictment must allege that the revolver was loaded, otherwise it will be defective.'* § 1177. Must negative exception. — Under a statute making it a criminal offense for any person, except officers and night watchmen, to carry concealed weapons, the "indictment must contain an averment that the defendant was not an officer or night watchman.'' § 1178. Alternative averment. — An indictinent which sets out an offense in the -alternative is defective; as that the defendant unlaw- fully did carry "on or about" his person a pistol.'* 1 1179. Carrying pistol.T— An indictment which alleges that the defendant did, at a time and place stated, then and there go into a ball-room and social party, "and did then and there unlawfully have and carry a pistol," sufficiently charges the offense of carrying a pistol on and about his person, but is not sufficient as to carrying a pistol into a social gathering.'' " Leatherwood v. S., 6 Tex. App. " P. v. Pendleton, 79 Mich. 317, 44 244; HudebufsH v. S., 38 Tex. 535; N. "W. 615; Young v. S., 42 Tex. 2 McClaln Or. L., § 1030. 462. '"'Com. V. Gallag^lier, 9 Pa. S. Ct. "Canterberry v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 100. S. W. &22. "'S. V. BolUsi 73 Miss. 57, 19 So. ''Lomax v. S., 38 Tfex. Cr; 318, 43 99; Ridenour v. S., 65 Ind. 411; S. S. W. 92; Powell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), T. Wardlaw, 43 Ark. 73. 25 S. W. 286. =* S. v. Williams, 2 Mo. App. 1180. B14 hughes' criminal law. § 1180 Aeticle IV. Evidence. § 1180. Burden as to concealment. — The burden of proof that the defendant carried the weapon concealed is on the prosecution.*^ The defendant having admitted that he carried a pistol home in his pocket, it is presumed that he carried it with intent to conceal it, and also that it was loaded.'* § 1181, Borden — ^As to defease. — ^If the defendant sets up a statu- tory exception as a defense to carrying a concealed weapon, the burden wiU be on him to bring himself within the exception.*" § 1182. Possession prima facie. — Where the statute makes the pos- session of a weapon prima facie evidence of its concealment, the de- fendant will have the right to rebut such evidence.*^ § 1183. Defendant's statements. — Evidence that shortly before the offense charged the defendant said he was going "to raise hell," is competent as tending to prove his guilt.*^ § 1184. Weapon as evidence. — If a person is arrested for some other offense than that of carrying a concealed weapon, and on being searched such weapon is found on his person, it may be used in evi- dence against him on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon.*' " S. V. Hale, 70 Mo. App. 143. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 49 S. W. 376; =» S. V. Hinnant, 120 N. C. 572, 26 Terry v. S., 90 Ala. 635, 8 So. 664; S. E. 643; Carr v. S., 34 Ark. 448. Com. v. Howard, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 407; "S. V. Hayne, 88 N. C. 625; S. v. Fitzgerald v. S., 12 Ga. 213; Scott Julian, 25 Mo. App. 133; S. v. Mad- v. S., 94 Ala. 80, 10 So. 505; French dox, 74 Ind. 105; Lewis v. S., 7 v. S., 94 Ala. 93, 10 So. 553; Hicks Tex. App. 567; Skeen v. S., 34 Tex. v. Com., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 597. See Cr. 308, 30 S. W. 554. But see P. v. Cotton v. S., 88 Ala. 168, 7 So. 148; Pendleton, 79 Mich. 317, 44 N. W. Smith v. S. (Miss., 1898), 24 So. 615. 316; Jones v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1898), "S. V. McManus, 89 N. C. 555; S. 45 S. W. 596; Sexton v. S. (Tex. V. Gilbert, 87 N. C. 527, 42 Am. Cr.), 45 S. W. 920. But held not R. 518. sufficient in the following: Smith " Dean v. S., 98 Ala. 71, 13 So. v. S., 10 Tex. App. 420; Rickard y. 318. See O'Neal v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. S. (Tex. App.), 16 S. W. 341; Gar- 42, 22 S. W. 25; Etress v. S., 88 Ala. rett v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 25 S. W. 285; 191, 7 So. 49. George v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. "Chastang v. S., 83 Ala. 29, 3 386; Cunningham v. S., 76 Ala. 88; So. 304; Terry v. S., 90 Ala. 635, 8 Sanderson v. S., 23 Tex. App. 520, So. 664. The evidence in the fol- 5 S. W. 138; S. v. Gilbert, 87 N. C. lowing cases was held sufficient 527, 42 Am. R. 518. proof of concealment: Christian v. CHAPTEK XXVII. CONSPIEAOT. 'Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1185-1307 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1208-1218 III. Indictment, §§ 1219-1231 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1233-1254 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1185. Conspiracy defined. — A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some crim- inal or unlawful purpose; or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.^ § 1186. Formal agreement not necessary. — It is not essential that there should be a formal agreement between the parties to commit the conspiracy, nor that the conspiracy should originate with the defend- ants. Persons entering into a conspiracy already formed are re- sponsible for all acts done by any of the other parties before or after its formation.^ § 1187. Common law misdemeanor. — Conspiracy at common law to commit a felony or misdemeanor is only a misdemeanor, and there- fore, where it is not declared by statute to be a felony, it is but a misdemeanor.^ "3 Greenl. Ev., § 89; Smltli v. P., =3 Greenl. Ev., § 93; Spies v. P., 25 111. 9; Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 122 111. 179, 12 N. E..865, 17 N. E. N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898. See Com. 898; McKee v. S., Ill Ind. 378, 12 V. Quay, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 723; S. v. N. E. 510; U. S. v. Cassidy,, 67 Fed. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; Pettibone v. 698; S. v. Clark, 9 Houst. (Del.) S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 S. Ct. 542; S. 536, 33 Atl. 310. T. Stevens, 30 Iowa 391; Underbill "Berkowitz v. U. S., 93 Fed. 452; Cr. Ev., § 490. Compare Lipschitz S. v. Thompson, 69 Conn. 720, 38 V. P., 25 Colo. 261, 53 Pac. 1111. Atl. 868. (315) 316 hughes' criminal law. § 1188 § 1188. Committed by two or more. — ^By the common law, a crim- inal conspiracy can not be committed by less than three persons, but by statutory definition two or more may commit the offense.* § 1189. Overt act not essential. — No overt act is necessary to con- stitute conspiracy, the gist of the offense being the unlawful con- federacy to do an unlawful act, or a lawful act by some criminal or unlawful means. The bare engagement to break the law completes the offense.^ In some jurisdictions conspiracy, as defined by statute, requires that some overt act must be committed by one or more of the parties to the conspiracy to effect its object hefore the offfense is eolii» plete.^ § 1190. Bare a^eement sufficient. — ^A bare conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses is sufficient to constitute the offense, al- though the accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy may be impossible.'' § 1191. Killing, probable result. — ^Where a number of persons conspire together to do an unlawful act, and in the prosecution of the common design a person is killed, all will be 'guilty of murder, where the killing is the probable result.* Where persons combine to * Evans v. P., 90 111. 384; S. v. B. 885; Adams v. P., 9 Hun (N. Y.) Tom, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 569; P. v. 89; S. v. Hickling, 41 N. J. L. 208, Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 301, 1 32 Am. D. 198; P. v. Arnold, 46 Am. D. 168; Com. v. Irwin, 8 Phila. Mich. 268, 9 N. W. 406; S. v. Straw, (Pa.) 380. See P. v. Richards, 67 42 N. H. 393. Cal. 412, 6 Am. C. R. 121, 7 Pac. 'S. v. HicMing, 41 N. J. L. 208, 828; Reg. v. Bunn, 12 Cox C. C. 32 Am. D. 198; U. S. v. Hntchlns, 26 316, 1 Green C. R. 73; S. v. Adams, Fed. Cas. No. 15,430; U. S. v. Reieh- Houst. Cr. (Del.) 361. ert, 32 Fed. 142, 12 Sawy. 643. = Ochs V. P., 124 111. 399. 423, 16 'Ochs v. P., 124 111. 426, 16 N. B. N. E. 662; Bannon v. U. S., 156 U. 662; S. v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 2 S. 464, 15 S. Ct. 467, 9 Am. C. R. Am. C. R. 38; Reg. v. Whitchurcli, 342; S. V. Ormiston, 66 Iowa 143, 24 Q. B. D. 420, 8 Am. C. R. 1; S. v, 23 N. W. 370, 5 Am. C. R. 115; S. v. Bruner, 135 Ind. 419, 35 N. E. 22; Noyes, 25 Vt. 415; Com. v. Warren, Isaac v. S., 48 Miss. 234; S. v. Rip- 6 Mass. 74; Com. v. McHale, 97 Pa. ley, 31 Me. 386. See P. v. Gilman, St. 405; U. S. V. Lancaster, 44 Fed. 121 Mich. 187, 80 N> W. 4, 46 L. K. 896, 10 L. R. A. 317; S. v. Ripley, A. 218. 31 Me. 386; U. S. v. Newton, 52 « Butler v. P., 125 111. 641, 18 N. B. Fed. 275; P. v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. 338; Spies v. P., 122 111. 225, 12 N. Y.) 229, 21 Am. D. 122; Heine v. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898; Williams v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 145; U. S. v. Wilson, S., 81 Ala. 1, 1 So. 179, 7 Am. C. R. 60 Fed. 890; Isaacs v. S., 48 Miss. 446; Weston v. Com., Ill Pa. St. 234; Miller v. S., 79 Ind. 198; John- 251, 6 Am. C. R. 451, 2 Atl. 191; U. son V. S., 3 Tex. App. 590; Mus- S. v. Sweeney, 95 Fed. 434; Bren- grave v. S., 133 Ind. 297, 306, 32 N. nan v. P., 15 111. 511; Wharton §il>192' CONSPIRACY. ^17[ siiafld'by one another in a breach of; the peace, with a generaj Tesolu- tipn to^ri^sist all ppposers, and in the execution of that design a nmr- der i^ committed, all are equally principals, tjiough, some are s^bsent fiomtheiipl^ce of the killing.* § 1198. Each conspirator liable. — Where there is a conspiracy to aiBGcanplish an unlawful, purpose, and the means are not . specifically agreed upon or understood, each conspirator .beeopaes responsible for the r means used by .any of the co-conspirators in accomplishing the pprpose in which they /are all. at the time engaged.^* §1193, Probable result, when. — ^If the crime was committed under tfif ii}fl)i€wce and.advjee of another, and the event, though possibly ff^^i^^g oi:|t, ti^y-ppd) tl^e original intpntion of the person s.o adyising, \yAS nevertjieless.iri the ordinary course of things a probable conse- quence of that crime, he is guilty of being accessory to , the crime actually committed. But if the principal, following his own de- signs, commit, a different offense, on a different subject, he alone is guilty.^f If several persons combine to assault. a certain person, each qf'them will; be criminally liable for. any :act of the others which is a probable or natural consequence of the execution of their common design or purpose, though the.particular act .done was not expressly agreed upon in advance.^^ .§,1194. Different result, — The law is that when parties are en- g^ed in the commission of a crime with malicious intent, and in the; execution thereof perpetrate another criminal act not originally intended, the unintended act derives its character from the intended; crime and the original malicious intent affects both acts.^' Homicide (2d ed.), § 201; 1 Hale P. Lusk v. S., 64 Miss. 845, 2 So. 256. C. 441; Reg. v. Bernard, 1 F. & F. See Reg. v. Bernard, 1 F. & F. 240. 240. See S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 " Jolly v. S., 94 Ala. 19, 10 So. Atl. 814. 606; P. v. Olsen, 80 Cal. 122, 22 Pac. ''Spies V. P., 122 111. 178, 12 N. B. 125; Com. v. Glover, 111 Mass. 395; 865, 17 N. E. 898; Williams v. P., 54 S. v. Johnson, 7 Or. 210; U. S. v. 111. 426. Boyd, 45 Fed. 851; Green v. S., 51 '"'S. V. Mceahill, 72 Iowa 111, 30 Ark. 189, 10 S. W. 266. N. W. 553, 33 N. W. 599 ; Pettibone " S. v. Vines, 34 La. 1079, 4 Am. V. U. S., 148 V. S. 197, 13 S. Ct. 542; C. R. 396; Goins v. S., 46 Ohio St. Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 N. E. 865, 457, 21 N. E. 476, 8 Am. 0. R. 29. 17 N. E. 898; Lamb v. P., 96 111. 73. See Lowery v. S., 30 Tex. 402; Com. "Watts V. S., 5 W. Va. 532; 3 v. Murphy, 16,5 Mass. 66, 42 N. E. Greenl. Ev., § 50; 4 Bl. Com. 37; 504. 318 hughes' criminal law. § 1195 § 1195. Departure from request. — Two men were requested by the defendant to enter a certain dwelling-house and beat a certain man, but the man was not there. One of the two men while there as- saulted the owner of the house and the other ravished his wife. The defendant could not be held responsible for the criminal con- duct of the two men, being a total departure from his request.^* Where the unlawful act agreed to be done is not of a dangerous or homicidal character, and its accomplishment does not necessarily or probably require the use of force or violence which may result in the taking of life unlawfully, no such criminal liability will attach merely from the fact of having been a party to such an agreement.^^ § 1196. Conspiracy merged. — A conspiracy to commit a felony is merged in the consummated act: as, where the conspiracy was to commit arson, and the crime is actually committed, the ofEense is arson only.^° But a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is not merged in the consummated act.^^ § 1197. Conspiracy to extort. — A conspiracy to extort money from a person who has committed a criminal ofEense by threatening to prosecute him for such offense unless he pays the money demanded, is a criminal conspiracy.^* An agreement to injure a person by charging him with the crime of larceny or other ofEense, is a crim- inal conspiracy.^* § 1198. Conspiracy to injure person. — Where persons confederated and agreed to injure a certain man and prevent him from contract- ing a marriage, and with that end in view falsely caused it to appear of record that the man was married to one of the conspirators, and, in proof of such marriage, produced a false marriage certificate, they were guilty of criminal conspiracy.' , 20 "Watts V. S., 5 W. Va. 532, 2 See S. v. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 Green C. R. 676; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 40. N. W. 120. " Lamb v. P., 96 111. 84; S. v. Fur- " S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765, 41 Am. ney, 41 Kan. 115, 21 Pac. 213, 8 Am. D. 79; S. v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; C. R. 136; Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 S. v. Setter, 57 Conn. 461, 18 Atl. N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898; Watts v. S., 782, 14 Am. R. 121; S. v. Noyes, 25 5 W. Va. 532. Vt. 415. " Hoyt v. P., 140 111. 591, 30 N. E. " Patterson v. S., 62 N. J. L. 82, 40 315; Shannon v. Com., 14 Pa. St. Atl. 773. 226; S. V. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; " S. v. Hickling, 41 N. J. L. 208, Elsey v. S., 47 Ark. 572, 2 S. W. 32 Am. D. 198; In re Emmanuel, 6 337; Com. v. Blackburn, 62 Ky. 4; City H. R. (N. Y.) 33; S. v. Ripley, 3 Greenl. Bv., § 90. Contra, S. v. 31 Me. 386; Com. v. McClean, 2 Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; P. v. Sum- Parson Bq. Cas. (Pa.) 367. mers, 115 Mich. 537, 73 N. W. 818. ^'Com. v. Waterman, 122 Mass. ^ 1199 CONSPIRACY. 319 § 1199. Conspiracy to seduce. — A conspiracy to seduce a female, Tvhether the means to be used be unlawful or criminal or not, is a crime at common law and punishable, although seduction is not in- dictable as a crime.^^ ' § 1200. Conspiracy to injure property or business. — Where per- sons confederate and agree to injure the property or business of -another they are guilty of criminal conspiracy.^^ Persons who com- bine together for the purpose of preventing their employer from tak- ing in his employ certain persons, or for the purpose of driving out of his employ certain other persons, are guilty of a criminal con- ;spiracy.^* § 1201. Conspiracy to compel an act. — A conspiracy to commit any criminal offense, either felony or misdemeanor, is an indictable •offense : as, a conspiracy to compel a person to sign a bank check and take it from him by force.^* § 1202. Conspiracy to commit offense. — ^A conspiracy to obtain the money or property of any person, company, corporation or of the public by means of false pretenses, or by any fraudulent scheme, trick or device, is a criminal offense.^^ § 1203. Partner defrauding partner. — If a partner of a firm con- spires with a stranger to the firm to make and put in circulation partnership notes with intent to defraud the other partner, it is a 43. See S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765, 41 Com. v. Hunt, Thacher Cr. C. Am. D. 79. (Mass.) 609; Com. v. SherifC, 15 ='' Smith V. P., 25 111. 14, 76 Am. Phila. (Pa.) 393. D. 786; Reg. v. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. "'P. v. Richards, 67 Cal. 412, 7 79; Rex v. Grey, 1 East P. C. 460; Pac. 828, 56 Am. R. 716; Thompson Anderson v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) v. S., 106 Ala. 67, 17 So. 512; Com. 627, 16 Am. D. 776; S. v. Wilson, 121 v. Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 536; P. v. Math- N. C. 650, 28 S. E. 416; S. v. Powell, er, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 229, 21 Am. D. 121 N. C. 635, 28 S. E. 525. 122; Com. v. Putnam, 29 Pa. St. ^ P. V. Petheram, 64 Mich. 252, 31 296. N. W. 188; S. V. Hewett, 31 Me. 396. ^'Johnson v. P., 22 111. 314; Ochs See S. V. Straw, 42 N. H. 393; v. P., 124 111. 399, 16 N. E. 662; Crump V. Com., 84 Va. 927, 6 S. E. Rhoads v. Com., 15 Pa. St. 272; P. 620, 10 Am. R. 895 (boycott) ; P. v. v. Watson, 75 Mich. 582, 42 N. W. Wilzig, 4 N. Y. Cr. 403 (boycott), 1005; Musgrave v. S., 133 Ind. 297, ''S. V. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. 32 N. E. 885; S. v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 559, 59 Am. R. 710; S. v. Glidden, 218; P. v. Clark, 10 Mich. 310; Lam- 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890; P. v. Walsh, bert v. P., 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 166; Com. •15 N. Y. Supp. 17; P. v. Smith, 10 v. Eastman, 55 Mass. 189, 48 Am. N. Y. Supp. 730; S. v. Donaldson, 32 D. 596; EUzey v. S., 57 Miss. 827; X J. L. 151, 90 Am. D. 649. See In re Wolf, 27 Fed. 606. 320 hughes' criminal law. § 1204 criminal conspiracy, the notes being foreign to the business of the § 1204. Obstructing public justice. — ^A conspiT-acy to pervert anol obstruct the administration of the election laws, with intent to unlawiully affect the result of. an election, is. a violation of the stat- ute relating to conspiracy Tirhieh provides that, "if any two or morft persons shall conspire to commit any act for the perversion or ob- struction of justice or the due administration of the laws," they shall be punished.^^ § 1205. "Citizen," "alien," "inhabitant," "resident."— The stal^ ute makes it a criminal act to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate. any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laWs of the United' States." The word "citizen" in this statute is used in its strict sense as contrasted with "alien"; it is not synonymous with "inhabi- tant," "person" or "resident."^'* § 1206. Obstructing mails. — Under a statute punishing any person for willfully and knowingly obstructing or retarding the passage- of the mails, it is an unlawful conspiracy for workmen to effect such obstruction intentionally by quitting their employment.^* § 1207. Inducing sale of liquor. — ^Persons acting together to en- force the Sunday liquor law, who by means of artifice or persuasion attempt to induce a tavern or saloonkeeper to sell into^cating: liquor on Sunday, are guilty of a criminal conspiracy.^" Aeticle II. Matters of Defense. § 1208. Defrauding another. — Where persons combine and agree together to cheat and defraud another by false statements as to the " S. V. Cole, 39 N. J. L. 324, 3 Am. " Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc., R. C. R. 54; 2 McClaln Cr. L., § 960. Co., 62 Fed. 803. " MoBchell v. S., 54 N. J. L. 390, ^ Com. v. Leeds, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 25 Atl. 964. See S. v. Ripley, 31 569. See P. v. Saunders, 25 Mich. Me. 386; S. v. Dewitt, 2 Hill (S. C.) 119. Contra, Com. v. Kostenbauder 282, 27 Am. D. 371; (Pa.), 20 AtL 995. "^ Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 7 S. Ct. 656, 763. § 1209 CONSPIRACY. 321 title of land they offer to sell to him, they are guilty of a criminal conspiracy, even though the falsity of their statements as to the title can be detected by an inspection of an abstract of title to the land." § 1209. Consenting to be robbed. — The offense of a conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery can not be committed where the owner consents to be robbed in order to entrap others to commit crime. If the property be taken with the consent of the owner it is not robbery, and therefore any act done by the alleged conspira- tors towards consummating the intended robbery is not criminal.^^ § 1210. Strikes by workmen. — ^It is not criminal for workmen to enter into an agreement not to work for persons who employ la- borers not members of some society or labor organization. Each person has a right to determine for himself for whom he will work or when he will not work.'' § 1211. Detective not accessory, — One who joins a criminal organ- ization in good faith for the purpose of detection and to expose the criminals connected with it, and honestly carries out his intention, ils not an accessory although he may have advised and counseled the parties to commit crime.'* § 1212. Parent procuring child. — It is not a conspiracy for a parent to enter into an agreement with others to get possession of his child where no unlawful means are used to accomplish their purpose.'" § 1213. Consent to commit adultery. — If a man and woman con- sent to live together in adultery they, by their adulterous conduct, are not guilty of conspiracy.'* "Miller v. P., 22 Colo. 530, 45 Pac. Atl. 814, 10 Am. C. R. 231; U. S. v. 408. Debs, 63 Fed. 436; U. S. v. Stevens, ""Connor v. P., 18 Colo. 373, 33 2 Hask. (U. S.) 164; P. v. Smith, Pac. 159, 36 Am. R. 295. See John- 10 N. Y. Supp. 730. son v. S., 3 Tex. App. 590; S. v. "Com. v. HoUister, 157 Pa. St. Porter, 25 W. Va. 685. 13, 27 Atl. 386; S. v. Brownlee, 84 " Com. V. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111. See Iowa 473, 51 N. W. 25. Reg. V. Bunn, 12 Cox C. C. 316, 1 ==Com. v. Myers, 146 Pa. St. 24,. Green C. R. 52; Com. v. Dyer, 128 23 Atl. 164. Mass. 70; S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 "Miles v. S., 58 Ala. 390. hughes' c. l. — 21 322 hughes' criminal law. § 1214 § 1214. Misapplying bank funds. — The officers of a banking asso- ciation by procuring a dividend when there are no net profits to pay the same, are not guilty of a conspiracy to willfully misapply the money of the bank, such act not being a "willful misapplication" .of the funds of the bank.^' § 1215. Defrauding by "salting" mine. — On a charge of conspir- acy to cheat and defraud by "salting" a gold mine, the prosecution is not required to show that the defendant knew how to salt a jnine.*^ ^ 1216. One pleads guilty, another acquitted. — Where two persons are indicted for conspiracy with other persons unknown, the trial and •acquittal of one will not afEect a plea of guilty entered by the other.'" § 1217. Dismissal as to one of two. — When two persons are charged ■with a conspiracy, and both are present in court after plea filed by each, a nolle prosequi entered as to one before verdict, leaves the ver- .dict inoperative and without effect- as to the other, because in that event no conspiracy is alleged against either.*" § 1218. Officer de facto sufficient. — On a charge of unlawful con- spiracy to bribe an officer it is no defense that the officer was only an officer de facto.*^ Aeticle III. Indictment. § 1219. Means immaterial. — The means by which a conspiracy was to be accomplished need not be alleged in the indictment where the conspiracy is to do an unlawful act.*'' But where the conspiracy con- "U. S. V. Britten, 108 U. S. 199, C. R. 127; Johnson v. P., 22 111. 317; 2 S. Ct. 531. Cole v. P., 84 111. 216; Smith v. P., ^S. V. Brady, 107 N. C. 822, 12 25 111. 9; Cowen v. P., 14 111. 348; S. E. 325. S. V. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 22 Am. »»Com. V. Edwards, 135 Pa. St. R. 719, 2 Am. C. R. 38; S. v. Ormis- 474, 19 Atl. 1064. See Casper t. S., ton, 66 Iowa 143, 23 N. W. 370; S. 47 Wis. 535, 2 N. W. 1117; P. v. v. Ripley, 31 Me. 386; S. v. Grant, Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 301, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N. W. 120; P. v. 1 Am. D. 168. Clark, 10 Mich. 310; S. v. Stewart, "S. V. Jackson, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. 559, 59 Am. R. 283, 3 Am. C. R. 52. 710^; S. v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. " S. V. Ray, 153 Ind. 334, 54 N. E. 317, 9 Am. D. 534. See Crump v. 1067. Com., 84 Va. 927, 6 S. E. 620, 10 "Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531, 5 Am. Am. R. 895; S. v. Hewett, 31 Me. § 1220 CONSPIRACY. 323 sists in the unlawful means used to accomplish an act the unlawful means must be set out in the indictment.*^ A conspiracy to cheat a municipal corporation is a crime per se, and it is sufficient to charge the conspiracy in general terms in the indictment without speci- fying the means by which the cheat was to be accomplished.** If the conspiracy charged is an unlawful combination and agreement by two or more persons to commit a deed which, if done, would be an offense or criminal act, well known and acknowledged, the nature ■of which is perfectly understood by the name by which it is designated, no further description of the crime is required. Nor is it necessary to set out the means by which the unlawful act was intended to be accomplished.*^ § 1220. Facts of conspiracy essential. — An indictment charging that the defendants conspired to commit the offense of corruptly en- deavoring to influence a jury of a certain court named in the dis- charge of its duty, is defective in not alleging facts showing a con- spiracy.*' In some jurisdictions, on a charge of conspiracy to com- mit a felony, the averments in the indictment should be as specific and full as in charging the felony itself.*' § 1221. Cheating and defrauding. — An indictment charging a con- spiracy to cheat and defraud must set out the means agreed upon by the conspirators to accomplish the fraud.** An indictment charg- 396; Com. v. Hunt, 45 Mass. Ill; H. 396; P. v. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480, 44 Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 9 Am. N. W. 937; Smith v. P., 25 111. 13. C. R. 169. « U. S. V. Taffe, 86 Fed. 113. "Smith V. P., 25 111. 15; S. v. "Landringham v. S., 49 Ind. 186, Stevens, 30 Iowa 391; S. v. May- 1 Am: C. R. 106; Reinhold v. S., 130 herry, 48 Me. 218; Alderman v. P., Ind. 467, 30 N. E. 306; Smith v. S., 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. D. 321; Petti- 93 Ind. 68; S. v. Savoye, 48 Iowa hone V. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 S. 562; Titus v. S., 49 N. J. L. 36, 7 Ct. 542; S. v. Potter, 28 Iowa 554; S. Atl. 621, 7 Am. C. R. 255; Com. v. V. Burnham, 15 N. H. 396; Com. v. Galbraith, 6 Phlla. (Pa.) 281. Hunt, 45 Mass. Ill, 38 Am. D. 346; Contra, McDonald v. P., 126 111. 150, Com. V. Eastman, 55 Mass. 189, 48 18 N. B. 817, 9 Am. C. R. 574; Am. D. 596; P. v. Richards, 1 Mich. Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531, 5 Am. 216, 51 Am. D. 75; P. v. Barkelow, C. R. 127; P. v. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480, 37 Mich. 455. 44 N. W. 937. See Lipschitz v. P., "S. v. Young, 37 N. J. L. 184; 25 Colo. 261, 53 Pac. 1111. Ochs V. P., 124 111. 399, 16 N. E. ■" S. v. Parker, 43 N. H. 83; S. €62; S. V. Cardoza, 11 S. C. 195. v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; S. v. «S. v. Ripley, 31 Me. 386; S. v. Keach, 40 Vt. 113; Com. v. Shedd, Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 2 Am. C. R. 61 Mass. 514; P. v. Eckford, 7 Cow. 381; S. V. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N. (N. Y.) 535; S. v. Roberts, 34 Me. "W. 120; P. V. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268, 320; Com. v. Prius, 75 Mass. 127; 9 N. W. 406; S. v. Burnham, ir N. March v. P., 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 391. 324 hughes' criminal law, § 1222 ing that the defendants combined "to cheat and defraud" another is not sufficient. The words "to cheat and defraud" import no offense at common law.*" § 1222. Persons intended to be defrauded. — ^In a charge of con- spiracy to defraud in general it is not necessary to allege in the in- dictment the names of the persons intended to be defrauded.'" § 1223. One may be indicted. — The information or indictment is sufficient even though it is against but one defendant, if it states, the name or names of the person or persons with whom he is charged to have conspired.'^ § 1224. Accusing one of adultery. — An indictment charging a con- spiracy against a man and woman, alleging that they falsely and maliciously conspired "to charge and accuse" a certain person named that he had committed the crime of adultery, "with intent thereby then and there unjustly and unlawfully to obtain and acquire to them divers sums of money from the said person, for compounding tke said pretended adultery so falsely and maliciously charged on him as aforesaid," sufficiently charges an offense.'^ § 1225. Conspiracy to arrest another. — An indictment, alleging that the defendant conspired with another to unlawfully and ma- liciously procure a third person to be arrested for larceny, well knowing that such person was not guilty, is sufficient under the statute.^^ But it is not necessary to allege the innocence of the person against whom the conspiracy is directed.'* § 1226. Allegation of overt act. — An indictment alleging a con- spiracy to defraud the United States by charging an unlawful com- bination and agreement as actually having been made, and also, by Contra. S. v. Young, 37 N. J. L. v. King, 7 Q. B. 782; P. v. Arnold, 184; P. V. Scholtz, 2 Wheeler Cr. 46 Mich. 268, 9 N. W. 406. Cas. (N. Y.) 617; U, S. v. Gordon, 22 "P. v. Richards, 67 Cal. 412, 7 Fed. 250; Com. v. Hadley, 13 Pa. Co. Pac. 828, 6 Am. C. R. 121; Heine Ct. 188; Com. v. Wilson, 1 Chester v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 145; P. v. Mather, Co. R. (Pa.) 538. 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 229, 21 Am. D. "Alderman v. P., 4 Mich. 414, 69 122. Am. D. 321. See Hartmann v. Com., " Com. v. Andrews, 132 Mass. 263; 5 Pa. St. 60; S. v. Parker, 43 N. H. S. v. Lynch, 7 N. J. L. 153. 83. "'Elkin v. P., 28 N. Y. 177. "Com. V. Judd, 2 Mass. 329; Reg. "Johnson v. S., 26 N. J. L. 313. ^ 1227 CONSPIRACY. 325 •describing some act by one of the parties to the conspiracy as having been done in pursuance of the agreement, is sufficient without aver- ling how such act would tend to effect the object of the conspiracy.^" § 1227. Deterring from employing. — In charging a conspiracy to deter a corporation from taking certain persons into its employ the indictment need not allege that the corporation desired or intended to employ the persons whom the conspirators prevented it from em- ploying.^" § 1228. To commit several offenses. — ^A conspiracy to commit sev- -eral crimes is but a single ofEense. No matter how many violations of law may be concerted by the conspirators, if the concert takes place at one time the ofEense is a single conspiracy, and the indict- ment may so charge without being bad for duplicity: as, a con- spiracy to commit robbery and larceny."^ But charging a conspiracy in one count to commit a certain crime and in another count of the same indictment, with the actual commission of the crime, is bad for •duplicity.^' § 1229. Knowledge or belief immaterial. — An indictment charg- ing substantially in the words of the statute that the defendants did -conspire "with intent falsely, fraudulently and maliciously" to cause a certain person to be prosecuted for an attempt to kill and murder, ■"of which crime" the said person "was innocent," sufficiently charges ■conspiracy without averring that the defendant knew or believed said person to be innocent."' § 1230. Conspiracy to obtain divorce. — An indictment alleging ihat the defendants "unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and fraudu- "^U. S. V. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 44 v. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N. W. 120; TJ. S.App. 219, 17 C. C. A. 293; XT. S. v Ormiston, 66 Iowa 143, 23 N. S. V. Donau, 25 Fed. Gas. No. 14, "W. 370; S. v. Kennedy, 63 Iowa 197, 983, 11 BlatcM. 168. As to the 18 N. W. 885; P. v. Everest, 51 Hun sufficiency of the indictment for (N. Y.) 19, 3 N. Y. Supp. 612; U. S. conspiracy to defraud the United v. Gardner, 42 Fed. 829. States, see the following cases: °° S. v. Kennedy, 63 Iowa 197, 18 Dealy v. U. S., 152 U. S. 539, 14 S. N. W. 885. See Com. v. O'Brien, 66 Ct. 680; U. S. v. Gardner, 42 Fed. Mass. 84; U. S. v. Lancaster, 44 •829; U. S. v. Milner, 36 Fed. 890. Fed. 885. ^ S. v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. ™ S. v. Locklin, 81 Me. 251, 16 559, 59 Am. R. 700. Atl. 895. "Noyes v. S., 41 N. J. L. 418; S. 326 hughes' criminal law. f 123L lently did conspire and agree together, with the fraudulent intent Wrongfully and wickedly to injure the administration of public jus- tice by then and there unlawfully, willfully and fraudulently attempt- ing to obtain and procure a decree of divorce" in a certain court named, is suflBcient.'" § 1231. Bill of particulars. — Where there is merely a general charge of conspiracy alleged in the indictment, the contemplated' means not being set out, the court on motion will require the prose- cution to furnish a specification of particulars giving the needed information.*'^ And the prosecution on the trial will be limited to- the means set forth in the bill of particulars.®'* Abticle IV. Evidence; Vaeiance. § 1232. Evidence generally circumstantial. — The evidence in proof of a conspiracy will generally, from the nature of the case, be cir- cumstantial. It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms, to have the common design and to pursue it by common means. Nor is it neccessary to prove that the defendants originated the conspiracy.®^ § 1233. Foundation to be laid. — A foundation must first be laid by proof, suflBeient in the opinion of the judge, to establish, prima- facie, the fact of conspiracy between the parties, or proper to be laid before the jury, as tending to establish such fact, before evidence as to the acts and declarations of the conspirators can be intro- duced.®* Sometimes, for the sake of convenience, the acts or declara- "Cole V. P., 84 111. 216; S. v. Ill Ind. 378, 12 N. E. 510; Hunter Ormiston, 66 Iowa 143, 23 N. W. v. S., 112 Ala. 77, 21 So. 65; Under- 370. See S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 hill Cr. Ev., § 493; Com. v. Hunton, Atl. 814. 168 Mass. 130, 46 N. E. 404; Archer "Com. V. Meserve, 154 Mass. 64, v. S., 106 Ind. 426, 7 N. B. 225; S. 27 N. E. 997; Com. v. Wilson, 1 Ches- v. Bingham, 42 W. Va. 234, 24 S. ter Co. R. (Pa.) 538; S. v. Brady, E. 883; S. v. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 65 107 N. C. 822, 12 S. B. 325. N. W. 295. "a McDonald v. P., 126 111. 150, 18 =n Greenl. Bv. (Redf. ed.), § 111; N. E. 817, 9 Am. R. 574. Spies v. P., 122 111. 238, 12 N. B. "^ Ochs V. P., 124 111. 422, 16 N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898; Underbill Cr. Bv., 662; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 93; § 494; 1 Roscoe Cr. Bv. (8th ed.), Spies V. P., 122 111. 213, 12 N. E. § 428; Winslow v. S., 76 Ala. 42, 5- 865, 17 N. E. 898; 2 Bish. Cr. L., Am. C. R. 45; Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. § 199; S. V. Sterling, 34 Iowa 443; 521, 3 Am. C. R. 42; Amos v. S.,. U. S. V. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; Reg. 96 Ala. 120, 11 So. 424; McGraw v. V. Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297; Com. v. Com., 14 Ky. L. 344, 20 S. W. 279; Warren, 6 Mass. 74; McKee v. S.. Belcher v. S., 125 Ind. 419, 25 N. § 1234 CONSPIRACY. 327 tions of the conspirators are admitted in evidence before sufficient proof is given of the conspiracy on the promise of the prosecution to furnish such proof in a subsequent stage of the cause."* § 1234. Declarations of each. — There being evidence of a con- spiracy or common purpose, the declarations of one are competent evidence against all.'^° The acts and declarations of one conspirator are the acts of all persons to the conspiracy, if done according to the common plan, though the result be not the particular result in- tended.^° § 1235. Evidence when conspiracy is over. — ^When the conspiracy is over, individual declarations, confessions, and acts are, of course, not in execution of the common purpose ; therefore they are competent only against those from whom they proceed.*' B. 545; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 29. See P. v. Smith, 162 N. Y. 520, 56 N. E. 1001. "1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 11; S. V. Winner, 17 Kan. 298; Spies v. P., 122 111. 238, 12 N. E. 865, 17 N. B. 898; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev., 429; P. V. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388, 2 Green C. R. 450; S. v. Cardoza, 11 S. C. 195; S. V. Mushrush, 97 Iowa 444, 66 N. W. 746; Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. 521; Hall v. S., 31 Pla. 176, 12 So. 449; S. V. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N. W. 120. ""S. V. Adams, 40 La. 213, 3 So. 733; Goins v. S., 46 Ohio St. 457, 21 N. E. 476; Seville v. S., 49 Ohio St. 117, 30 N. E. 621; U. S. v. Good- ing, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 469; P. v. Bently, 77 Cal. 7, 18 Pac. 799; Whar. Or. Ev., §§ 698-701; Com. v. O'Brien, 140 Pa. St. 555, 21 Atl. 385; Wilson V. P., 94 111. 299; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 335; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 28. See also P. v. Parker, 67 Mich. 222, 34 N. W. 720; Cox v. S., 8 Tex. App. 254; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 12 S. Ct. 617; S. v. Corcoran (Idaho), 61 Pac. 1034; Segrent v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 845; Roberts v. S., 109 Ga. 546, 35 S. E. 658; S. v. Jacobs, 7 Ohio N. P. 261, 10 Ohio Dec. 252. See Fitzpat- rick V. U. S., 178 U. S. 304, 20 S. Ct. 944. "McMahon v. P., 189 HI. 222, 59 N. B. 584; Carr v. S., 43 Ark. 99, 5 Am. C. R. 438; S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 Atl. 814; Samples v. P., 121 111. 547, 13 N. E. 536; Wilson v. P.. 94 111. 300; Brennan v. P., 15 111. 511; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev., 95; Nudd V. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 94; 1 Bish. Cr. L., 636; Ham- ilton V. P., 113 111. 38; Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. 521, 3 Am. C. R. 42; Ban- non V. U. S., 156 U. S. 464, 9 Am. C. R. 342, 15 S. Ct. 467; S. v. GooCh, 105 Mo. 392, 16 S. W. 892; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 492. "2 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 230; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 699; 1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 111; Under- hill Cr. Ev., § 493; S. v. West- fall, 49 Iowa 328, 3 Am. C. R. 347; Lamb v. P., 96 111. 73; Jenkins v. S., 35 Pla. 737, 18 So. 182; Sparf V. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 10 Am. C. R. 172, 15 S. Ct. 273; P. v. Oldham, 111 Cal. 648, 44 Pac. 312; Brown v. U. S., 150 U. S. 93, 14 S. Ct. 37; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 233; S. v. Tice, 30 Or. 457, 48 Pac. 367; P. v. Stanley, 47 Cal. 113, 2 Green C. R. 439; Ben- nett V. S., 62 Ark. 516, 36 S. W. 947; Everage v. S., 113 Ala. 102, 21 So. 404; S. V. Duffy, 124 Mo. 1, 27 S. W. 358; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 12 S. Ct. 617; P. v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 284, 18 N. B. 156; P. v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268, 9 N. W. 406; U. S. V. Gunnell, 5 Mackey 196, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 614; S. v. Stair, 87 Mo. 268, 56 Am. R. 452; S. v. Palmer, 79 Minn. 428, 82 N. W. 685. 328 hughes' criminal law. § 1236 § 1236. Act must be probable result. — The act done must be the ordinary and probable effect of the wrongful act specifically agreed upon, so that the connection between them may be reasonably appar- ent, and not a fresh, independent product of the mind of one of the conspirators, outside of and foreign to the common design."* § 1237. Act of each in escaping. — There can be no liability of one of the parties to a conspiracy to break Jail for the acts done by the others in escaping, which were not within the joint purpose or com- bination. The parties may possibly combine to make their escape effectual, but no such an agreement can lawfully be inferred from a combination to do the original wrong."* § 1238. Not in furtherance of common design. — A mere narrative to a stranger, related during the pendency of the enterprise, but of a past event or occurrence and not in furtherance of the common design, is quite as objectionable as if related after the criminal enterprise has terminated. It is no part of the res gestae.'"' The evidence tended to show that the defendant and others acting together took the deceased — a woman — to a rooin for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her ; and it further tended to show that some person other than the defendant pushed the woman out of the window, break- ing her leg, from which injury she died. The defendant had jumped out of the window first. The evidence failing to show that the de- fendant was a party to a conspiracy or agreement to thus put the deceased out of the window, he could not be held responsible for the act resulting in the death of the woman.''^ § 1239. Acts committed out of state. — Evidence of any acts of any of the conspirators committed in another state, or out of the jurisdiction of the court, relating to the conspiracy, is not competeDt of itself to prove the conspiracy charged, but may be considered as =» Bowers v. S., 24 Tex. App. 542, =» P. v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112, 1 7 S. W. 247; Watts v. S., 5 W. Va. Green C. R. 254; Reg. v. Howell, 9 532, 2 Green C. R. 679 [citing 3 C. & P. 437; Rex v. WWte, R. & R. Greenl. Ev., § 50]; Lamb v. P., 96 99; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 40. 111. 73; Rulofl v. P., 45 N. Y. 213; "Samples v. P., 121 111. 551, 13 N. "Williams v. S., 47 Ark. 230, 9 Cr. L. E. 536; Patton v. S., 6 Ohio St. 470; 'Mag. 480, 1 S. W. 149; Kirby v. S., 1 Greenl. Ev., § 111. 23 Tex. App. 13, 5 S. W. 165; Thomp- "P. v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 112, 1 son V. S., 25 Ala. 41; S. v. Johnson, Green C. R. 253. See 3 Greenl. Ev., 7 Or. 210; Frank v. S., 27 Ala. § 40; 4 Bl. Com. 37. ^7, §1240 CONSPIRACY. 329 showing the nature, extent, plan, and operations of the conspiracy if one existed.'''' § 1240. Defrauding several counties. — On a charge of a conspiracy to defraud several counties out of a fund called wolf bounty, by filing fraudulent claims, evidence of the auditors of each of the counties is competent to show that the defendants filed such claims in their ofBces, claiming bounty for wolves killed.'^ § 1241. Showing overt act. — An overt act in a conspiracy to main- tain a suit, may be shown by introducing the complaint filed in the suit contemplated by the conspiracy, though none of the defendants was a party to the suit so instituted.'* § 1242. Overt acts — ^to prove conspiracy. — To prove a general con- spiracy, distinct overt acts of conspiracy may be given in evidence; and when the issue is whether a party is guilty of a specific overt act of conspiracy, it is competent to give in evidence other overt acts of conspiracy which include or are dependent upon or constitute part of the res gestae of the act.'"' § 1243. General conspiracy, competent. — Where the specific con- spiracy is the outgrowth and product of a general conspiracy, and the specific conspiracy could be understood only by showing the nature and character of the general conspiracy, then evidence of such general conspiracy is competent.''® § 1244. Evidence proving other ofifenses. — Any evidence which tends to prove any element of the conspiracy charged in the indict- ment is competent, though it may tend to connect the defendants with other different offenses or conspiracies not alleged in the indict- ment.''' "U. S. V. Newton, 52 Fed. 275; Carroll v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 107, 2 Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. 521. See Com. Am. C. R. 290; S. v. Mayberry, 48 V. Parker (Ky.), 57 S. W. 484. See Me. 218. I 1252. "Spies v. P., 122 111. 230, 12 N. ,"S. V. Mclntosli, 109 Iowa 209, E. 865, 17 N. E. 898; S. v. McCahill, 80 N. W. 349. 72 Iowa 111, 30 N. W. 553, 33 N. "P. v. Daniels, 105 Cal. 262, 38 "W. 599; Carroll v. Com., 84 Pa. Pac. 720. See S. v. Burnham, 15 N. St. 107; Card v. S., 109 Ind. 415, 9 H. 396. N. E. 591. "McDonald v. P., 126 111. 150, 162, "McDonald v. P., 126 111. 150, 18 18 N. E. 817; Spies v. P., 122 111. N. E. 817; S. v. Glidden,.55 Conn. 230, 12 N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898. See 46, 8 Atl. 890; Card v. S., 109 Ind. 330 hughes' criminal law. §1245 § 1245. Acts barred by limitation. — Acts of the conspirators, though barred by the statute of limitation, may be shown in evidence,, where the same conspiracy continued to exist to a time not so barred." § 1246. Variance — ^Person or public. — The object of a conspiracy, must be proved as charged. If the conspiracy charged be to obtain the money of and from a person named, proof that the design was to defraud the public generally is not sufficient.^* § 1247. Conspiracy — ^With one or two. — ^An indictment charging the defendant with conspiracy with two other persons named will be sustained if the proof shows he conspired with only one of them. The allegation as to the other will be regarded as surplusage.'" § 1248. Inflicting injury. — An indictment which charges a con- spiracy "with intent to inflict a great bodily injury" is sustained by proof of a conspiracy to tar and feather the prosecuting witness." § 1249. One of several acts sufS.cienti — An indictment charging a conspiracy to obtain goods by various false pretenses is sustained by proof of any one of the several false pretenses alleged.*^ § 1250. Different act — ^Is variance. — An indictment charging a conspiracy to assault a woman with intent to ravish and carnally know her is not sustained by proof of a conspiracy to seduce and commit adultery with her.^^ § 1251. Variance as to owner. — ^Where an indictment charges a conspiracy to commit robbery, alleging the possession of the property 415, 9 N. E. 591; S. V. Lewis, 96 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 275; U. S. Iowa 286, 65 N. W. 295; P. v. v. Barrett, 65 Fed. 62. Bleeker, 2 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) "Evans v. P., 90 111. 389; Com. v. 256. ■ See P. v. Saunders, 25 Mich. Harley, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 506; 2 Rus- 119. sell Crimes (7th Am. ed.), 702; Com. "Ochs V. P., 124 111. 399, 16 N. v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 473. E. 662. The evidence in the follow- «■ Woodworth v. S., 20 Tex. App. ing cases was held sufficient to sus- 375; Reg. v. Quinn, 19 Cox C. C. 78. tain convictions: Ochs v. P., 124 See Clary v. Com., 4 Pa. St. 210. 111. 399, 16 N. E. 662; Com. v. "" S. v. Ormiston, 66 Iowa 143, 23 Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 40 N. B. 189; N. W. 370. O'Donnell v. P., 41 111. App. 23; P. ''Com. v. Meserve, 154 Mass. 64, V. Petheram, 64 Mich. 252, 31 N. 27 N. E. 997; U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 W. 188; P. V. Hall, 64 N. Y. Supp. Fed. 698. 433, 15 N. Y. Cr. 29. But not sulB- " S. v. Hadley, 54 N. H. 224. Bvi- cient in the following: S. v. Simons, dence not sufficient: S. v. May, 142 4 Strob. (S. C.) 266; U. S. v. Lan- Mo. 135, 43 S. W. 637. caster, 44 Fed. 896; P. v. Keys, 1 § 1252 CONSPIRACY. 331 to be stolen in one person, and the title thereto in another, the proof must sustain both allegations.** § 1252. Venue. — If the overt act, that is, the act charged in the indictment as having been committed in furtherance of the con- spiracy, was committed within the district, then it does not matter where the conspiracy was formed or the unlawful agreement entered into, for it is continued- or renewed in the district where such overt act was performed.'" § 1253. New trial must be for all. — A new trial can not be granted to one conspirator without granting it to all who stand convicted^ although there may' be no grounds for disturbing the verdict so far as it affects one of them. The defendants can not be separated. A new trial must, therefore, be granted to all.*" § 1254. Penalty for attempt. — An attempt to commit an offense shall never be punished more severely than the perpetration of it. A conspiracy is even less than an attempt, and it is error to impose on it a greater punishment than the statute has annexed to the offense itself.*^ "Ward V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 21 S. »»Reg. v, Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 823, W. 250. 841, 58 Bng. Com. L. R. 841; Com. v. =»TJ. S. V. Newton, 52 Fed. 275, McGowan, 2 Pars. Bq. Cas. (Pa.) 283; Com. v. Gillespie, 7 Serg. & R. 341; Isaacs v. S., 48 Miss. 234, 1 (Pa.) 469. The overt act in the Am. C. R. 104. last case was putting a quantity of " Hartmann v. Com., 5 Pa. St. 60, old newspapers in the mail for the 67; Scott v. Com., 6 S. & R. (Pa.)' purpose of fraudulently increasing 224; S. v. Jackson, 82 N. C. 565; the weight of the mail matter. See S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 Atl. 814. § 1239; Com. v. Parker (Ky.), 57 S. W. 484. CHAPTBE XXVIII. LIBEL. Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1255-1262 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1263-1270 III. Indictment, §§ 1271-1282 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1283-1296 Article I. Defhstitioit and Elements. § 1255. libel defined. — ^Libel is the malicious defamation of any person, and especially a magistrate, made public either by printing, writing, signs or pictures, in order to provoke him to wrath, or expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule.^ In such prosecutions the only points to be inquired into are, first, the making or publish- ing of the book or writing ; and, second, whether the matter be crim- inal. If both these points are against the defendant, the offense is complete.^ A libel is a false and malicious publication against an individual, either in print or writing, or by pictures, with intent to injure the reputation of the individual and expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.' Words written or printed and pub- lished, imputing to another any act, the tendency of which is to -dis- grace him or deprive him of the confidence and good-will of society, or lessen its esteem for him, are actionable per se.^ Any written or printed publication concerning one, which has a tendency to injure '4 Bl. Com. 150; 3 Greenl. Ev., Pac. 209]; S. v. Shaffner, 2 Pen. § 164. (Del.) 171, 44 Atl. 620. " 4 Bl. Com. 151. Indictment suffi- ' S. v. Smlly, 37 Ohio St. 30; S. v. cient: Crowe v. P., 92 111. 232. Spear, 13 R. I. 324; Hartford v. S., = S. V. Smily, 37 Ohio St. 30; Un- 96 Ind. 461, 49 Am. R. 185; S. v. derhill Cr. Ev., § 361 [citing Baker Schmltt, 49 N. J. L. 579, 9 Atl. 774; V. S., 50 Neb. 202, 69 N. W. 749; P. P. v. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269, 55 N. V. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) W. 809; Com. v. Wright, 1 Cush. 337; P. V. Ritchie, 12 Utah 180, 42 (Mass.) 46; Crowe v. P., 92 111. 231. (332) § 1256 LIBEL. 333 his reputation or character, or to bring him into contempt, hatred, or ridicule, is a libel.'' § 1256. Newspaper publication. — A newspaper publication falsely charging a public officer with extortion by collecting more money from a person than he is entitled to collect, and appropriating the difference, is a libel.' A newspaper publication charging the super- intendent of schools with receiving money as a consideration for his influence to induce the board of education to change school-books is libelous.'' § 1257. Facts constituting libel. — A publication charging that a person had become insane in the persecution of his political opponent ; that his insane prejudice and hatred would become contagious and result in murder, amounts to criminal libel.* § 1258. Aiding, abetting. — A person who furnishes the libelous matter for publication is equally liable with the editor who publishes the same, though he may not see what was actually written until after it is published." § 1259. Liable for agent's acts. — The owner or principal will be held criminally liable for defamatory or libelous matter published or put in circulation by his agents, servants, or employes, even though done without his knowledge or consent, unless it shall be made to further appear that the publication did not occur through his negli- gence or want of ordinary eare.^" § 1260. Sending through mail. — A collection agency, in attempting to collect claims by sending envelopes to the debtor through the mail, with the words, "Bad Debt Collecting Agency," printed on them, is guilty of libel, such envelopes tending and being intended to expose "Raker v. S., 50 Neb. 202, 69 N. 'Clay v. P., 86 111. 151; S. v. Os- W. 749. born, 54 Kan. 473, 38 Pac. 572; Reg. "Benton v. S., 59 N. J. L. 551, 36 v. Cooper, 8 Q. B. 533; 3 Greenl. Atl. 1041. See S. v. Mott. 45 N. J. B3v., § 172; Com. v. Wolfinger, 16 Pa. L. 494; Com. v. Swallow, 8 Pa. Sup. Co. R. 257. See Com. v. Murphy, 539. 8 Pa. Co. R. 399; S. v. Shaffner, 2 'Hartford v. S., 96 Ind. 461, 49 Pen. (Del.) 171, 44 Atl. 620. Am. R. 185; Com. v. Wright, 1 " S. v. Mason, 26 Or. 273, 38 Pac. Cush. (Mass.) 46. 130; Reg. v. Holbrook, L. R. 4 Q. »S. V. Roberts, 2 Marv. (Del.) 450, B. D. 42, 47; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 171. 43 Atl. 252. 334 hughes' criminal law. § 1261 the persons to whom sent to contempt and bring them into disrepute with their employers and the public.^^ § 1261. Publication defaming character. — The following newspa- per publication was held libelous : "Against what man is the deputy sheriil now plotting by the employment of a needy man who shall act as a spotter, that some one who has incurred the liquor deputy's displeasure may be punished? Who will be the next young man to lay himself liable to the state prison for a term of years by taking a false oath by direction of this guardian of our laws ?"^^ § 1262. Publication defaming several. — Where a person commits the ofEense of libeling several persons by a single publication in writ- ing, it is but one criminal ofEense, though the persons so libeled were not associated in business together.^* Article II. Matters of Pefense. § 1263. Truth of- publication. — The defendant, in his defense to a charge of libel, may prove the truth of the publication alleged to be libelous, and it matters not what motive prompted him to make the publication.^* But the defendant must prove the entire publica- tion to be true to sustain his defense of justification.^' § 1264. Slandering unchaste woman. — An unchaste woman can not be regarded the subject of slander by charging her with having sexual intercourse. The defendant may show on his defense to such charge, that the woman was guilty of previous acts of sexual inter- § 1265. Slandering "innocent woman." — ^Although a woman may have had sexual intercourse with a man, she may repent of her im- moral conduct and become virtuous and an "innocent woman," within "S. V. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 414, Bush, 122 Ind. 42, 23 N. B. 677. 16 S. W. 604. Extortion by sending But see Com. v. Damon, 136 Mass. a threatening letter: Moore v. P., 441. Contra, S. v. Haskins, 109 69 111. App. 399. See 3 Greenl. Bv., Iowa 656, 80 N. W. 1063, 47 L. R. A. § 171. 223. ^'S. V. Norton, 89 Me. 290, 36 '» S. v. Lyon, 89 N. C. 568. See Atl. 394. Underbill Cr. Bv., § 365. '"S. V. Hoskins, 60 Minn. 168, 62 "Wood v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 476, 24 N. W. 270. S. W. 284. ^^Underhill Cr. Bv., § 365; S. v. j 1266 LIBEL, 335 the meaning and protection of the statute for slandering an "innocent § 1266. Can not compel female to be examined. — On a charge of slander in which the chastity of a female is made an issue, it is not €rror for the court to refuse to require the female to submit to inspec- tion of her private parts. ^* § 1267, Circulating hearsay — Slanderous reports. — The defendant can not justify on the ground that the writing charged to be libelous was merely a repetition of previous oral publications, and that the conduct or acts of the person to whom the writing refers induced him to make the written publication. ^° It is no defense tO' a charge of libel that the subject-matter of the libel had for a long time' been currently reported in the community and generally believed to be true.2» § 1268. Publication — When not. — The reception of a libelous let- ter, though sent through the mail, which has not been read or heard by some third person, is no publication of a libel.^^ § 1269. Defaming judge — ^When not. — ^A newspaper article en- titled, "Political Pull," contained among other things the following: "There is no reason why the public prosecutor should not handle these liquor cases. Does he hold back because he has made a bar- gain ? We shall never have our laws enforced till the public servants in the court-house cease to bargain with the dive-keepers." This article was held not to be a libel on the judge trying such cases at the court-house, and could not by innuendo be made to apply to him.^^ § 1270. Provocation, competent in defense. — The defendant may show in mitigation of punishment that he was provoked to the publi- cation of the libel charged by the prosecuting witness publishing a libel upon him a short time before. ^^ "S. V. Grigg, 104 N. C. 882, 10 113; S. v. Hollon, 12 Lea (Tenn.) S. E. 684. 482; S. v. Barnes, 32 Me. 530. See "Whitehead v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 169; Haase v. S., 53 89, 45 S. W. 10. N. J. L. 34, 20 Atl. 751. "Vallery v. S., 42 Neb. 123, 60 '^Avirett v. S., 76 Md. 510, 25 Atl. N. W. 347. 676, 987. »°Com. v. Place, 153 Pa. St. 314, == Hartford v. S., 96 Ind. 461, 49 26 Atl. 620. Am. R. 185. "Hodges v. S., 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 336 HUGHES^ CRIMINAI/ LAW. § 1271 Article III. Indictment. § 1271. Libelous matter must be set out. — According to the au- thorities, beginning with the oldest and extending to the latest, and almost wholly unbroken, libel belongs to that class of cases in which it is held to be absolutely necessary to set out in the indictment the alleged libelous matter, according to its tenor.^* But where the de- famatory publication is found in a book, it is not necessary to set out the whole of the book.^' Under a statute providing that "whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity," shall be pun- ished, an indictment should set out the words constituting the slander and also that they were spoken in the presence of some person.^' I 26 § 1272. Matter too obscene to allege. — It can never be required that an obscene book or picture should be displayed upon the records of the court, by setting the same out in the indictment."^ § 1273. Innuendoes, not reciuired. — ^An indictment need not set out the libelous or slanderous matter with innuendoes where the meaning of the libelous matter is perfectly plain to an intelligent person."* An indictment charging the defendant with telling to another that he had seen a certain woman and man "getting there" does not impute a want of chastity to the woman ; but the expression "getting there," by proper innuendo, is susceptible of such meaning." § 1274. Manner of publication unnecessary. — An indictment averred that the defendant did "unlawfully and maliciously compose, write and cause to be printed and published" the libelous matter, stating it, of and concerning the person alleged to be libeled. These facts, with the ordinary averments following, constituted a complete offense, either at common law or under the statute, without stating the particular manner in which the printing and publication were made.'* "S. V. Townsend, 86 N. C. 676; too obscene to be spread on the S. V. Bildstein, 44 La. 778, 11 So. records of the court. 37. See 3 Greenl. Bv., §§ 166, 167. ^ Jones v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 364, 43 ^S. V. Barnes, 32 Me. 533. S. W. 78; Benton v. S., 59 N. J. L. " Burnham v. S., 37 Fla. 327, 20 551, 36 Atl. 1041. See S. v. Nichols, So. 548. 15 Wash. 1, 45 Pac. 647; P. v. C!ol- ='Com. V. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336; lins, 102 Cal. 345, 36 Pac. 669. McNair v. P., 89 111. 443. But see "Whitehead v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. Reg. V. Bradlaugh, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 89, 45 S. W. 10. 569. The indictment should contain =" Tracy v. Com., 87 Ky. 578, 10 an averment that the language is Ky. L. 611, 9 S. W. 872; Rattray § 1275 LIBEL. 337 § 1275. "Maliciously" not essential. — The statute provides that if any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, every such person, on conviction, shall be liable to iine or imprisonment, or both, as the court may award. This statute does not create a new offense. It is merely an application to that which is an offense at common law of the punishment which is to take place upon a conviction for the common law offense. The word "maliciously" is not, therefore,^ essential to the validity of the indictment for libel.^^ § 1276. Defaming hy charging adultery. — Under a statute making it a criminal offense for any person to falsely and maliciously charge any female with "incest, fornication, adultery, or whoredom," an in- formation stating that the defendant charged a certain female with pregnancy, with the intent to falsely and maliciously charge her with incest, fornication, adultery, and whoredom, is sufficient.^" § 1277. Libel by charging degrading act. — ^TJnder a statute mak- ing it a criminal offense to charge another, by word or writing, with having committed an infamous or degrading act, an information charging that the defendant published in a newspaper that a certain named person's arm was broken while being ejected froiti a house of ill fame sufficiently states an offense. ^^ § 1278. Defaming woman. — An indictment alleging that the de- fendant "did falsely and maliciously impute to" a certain woman?, named "a want of chastity," by saying that a certain man, naming- him, was "inonkeying" with the woman, "and doing what he pleased with her," meaning that he was having carnal knowledge of her, suf- ficiently states an offense.^* § 1279. Disgraceful conduct — Innuendoes. — An indictment mere- ly setting out the publication or words claimed to be libelous, and then, alleging in general terms that such publication charging a person named with dishonesty or disgraceful conduct, tends to bring him into contempt or disgrace, is not sufficient. The indictment should V. S., 61 Miss. 377. But see P. v. "P. v. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269, 55- Stark, 136 N. Y. 538, 32 N. B. 1046. N. W. 809; S. v. Roberts, 2 Marv., "Reg. V. Munslow, 18 Cox C. C. (Del.) 450, 43 Atl. 252. Il2, 10 Am. C. R. 483. ^ Dickson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 1, 28: " S. V. Buck, 43 Mo. App. 443. S. W. 815, 30 S. W. 807.. hughes' c. l. — 22 338 hughes' criminal law. § 1280 point out by proper innuendo .some particular act disgraceful to the person alleged to be slandered.^° §. 1280. Must charge libel was in writing. — The statute of New York defines libel as a malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign, or otherwise than by mere speech. An indict- ment failing to state that the alleged libel was written is defective.^' § 1281. Statutory words essential. — The words "which tends to provoke a breach of the peace" are descriptive of the offense of libel, and an indictment charging libel is defective in omitting to allege that the publication tended to provoke a breach of the peace.^' § 1282. Duplicity, when and when not. — An indictment charging two different publications in the same count, as a libel, is bad for duplicity. Each publication is a separate offense.^' An indictment charging the defendant with writing, publishing, and circulating a libelous communication of and concerning a certain person named ■''and others," and it clearly appearing from the face of the indict- ment that the libel was intended for the person named, the words "and others" may be regarded as surplusage, and the indictment will be sufficient.^" Article IV. Evidence; Variance: § 1283. Weight of evidence. — Where the defendant relies upon the truth of the words charged as slander as his defense, the prosecu- tion must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the slanderous words "McKee v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 544, 40 Smith v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 320, 45 S. S. W. 305; Nordhaus v. S. (Tex. W. 1013; Squires v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. Cr.), 40 S. W. 804. 96, 45 S. W. 147 (political); Bar- ""P. v. Stark, 12 N. Y. Supp. 688, num v. S., 92 Wis. 586, 66 N. W. 59 Hun 51. 617; Bonney v. S., 2 Idaho 1015, 29 =» Moody v. S., 94 Ala. 42, 10 So. Pac. 185; S. v. Haddock, 109 N. C. «70. See Lawton v. Ter., 9 Okla. 873, 13 S. E. 714; S. v. Matheis, 44 456, 60 Pac. 93. Mo. App. 294. See S. v. Conahle, 81 " S. v. Healy, 50 Mo. App. 243'; P. Iowa 60, 46 N. W. 759. Indictment V. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269, 55 N. W. held defective: Barnes v. S., 88 Md. 809. 347, 41 Atl. 781; Byrd v. S., 38 Tex. »S. V. Heacock, 106 Iowa 191, 76 Cr. 630, 44 S. W. 521; Neely v. S., ■N. W. 654. See England v. S. 32 Tex. Cr. 370, 23 S. W. 798; P. v. as tending to disprove malice."^ In his defense it is competent for the defendant to show that he did not participate in the publication; or if it was done by his servant, that it was against his express orders,, or out of the course of the servant's employment.^^ § 1291. All said is competent. — On a charge of using slanderous words concerning the chastity of a woman, the defendant is entitled to show all that was said at the time of the alleged slander, and he may also show that he used similar words to other persons concerning the woman, on other occasions.^' «S. V. Mills, 116 N. C. 1051, 21 v. Baily States Pub. Co., 48 La. S. E. 563. 1116, 20 So. 173. "S. V. Riggs, 39 Conn. 498; Com. "S. v. Heacock, 106 Iowa 191, 76 V. Place, 153 Pa. St. 314, 26 Atl. N. W. 654; S. v. Conable, 81 Iowa 620; Eldridge v. S., 27 Pla. 162, 9 60, 46 N. W. 759; Manninl; v. S., 37 So. 448; S. ,v. Conable, 81 Iowa 60, Tex. Cr. 180, 39 S. W. 118. 46 N. W. 759; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 168. ''P. v. Glassman, 12 Utah 238, 42 Malice may be inferred from the Pac. 956; Benton v. S., 59 N. J. L. willful doing of any unlawful act 551, 36 Atl. 1041; Duke v. S., 19 which is calculated to injure the Tex. App. 14; Com. v. Snelling, 32 person alluded to: Underbill Cr. Mass. 337. Ev., § 364, citing S. v. Brady, 44 '"'3 Gfeenl. Ev., § 178. Kan. 435, 24 Pac. 948; Fitzpatriek « Whitehead v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 89, 45 S. W. 10. ^1292 LIBEL. 341 § 1292. Trial by society incompetent. — On the trial of a person charged with slander, evidence that he had been tried and expelled from a church for the same slander is incompetent.'* § 1293. Identical words essential. — The identical words set ont in the indictment alleged to be slanderous must be proved ; it is not suffi- cient to prove words of similar import.'^ § 1294. No variance. — Where the indictment charges the defend- ant with using the slanderous words, "to and of" a person named, it is sustained by proof of using the word "of" such person, though not "to" him.=° § 1295. Publishing in presence of several. — Where an indictment charges the defendant with publishing a libel in the presence of more than one person, naming them, the proof must show the presence of all so alleged to be present.'^ An information charging the defend- ant with using slanderous words of and concerning another, in the presence of two persons named, is not supported by proof that ihe words were used in the presence and hearing of one of them alone at one time, and the other alone at another time.*' § 1296. Proving other slanderous words. — The fact that the proof -shows the defendant used other slanderous words, together with the words alleged in the indictment, can not be urged as a variance.^* "Tippens v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S. 33 S. W. 340; Story v. Jones, 52 W. 1000. Evidence sufficient to sus- 111. App. 112; S. v. Armstrong, 106 tain convictions: England v. S. Mo. 395, 16 S. W. 604; Berry v. S., (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 379. See P. v. 27 Tex. App. 483, 11 S. W. 521; Un- Miller, 122 Cal. 84, 54 Pac. 523; derhill Cr. Ev., § 363. Bowen v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 18 S. W. ""Lecroy v. S., 89 Ga. 335, 15 S. B. 464; S. V. Ford (Minn.), 85 N. W. 463. 217. Evidence not sufficient to sus- "Neely v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 370, 23 tain convictions: Lefever v. S. S. W. 798. See Davis v. S. (Tex. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. W. 383; Laskey Cr.), 22 S. "W. 979. V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 18 S. W. 465; P. »» Knight v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. V. Carroll, 62 N. Y. Supp. 790, 14 "W. 385. JST. Y. Cr. 402. =» Lefever v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. "" Barnett v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 280, W. 383. CHAPTBE XXIX. EIOT. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1297-1298: II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1299-1302 III. Indictment, §§ 1303-130& IV. Evidence, §§ 1307-1308. Article I. Definition- and Elements. § 1297. Riot defined. — ^A riot is where three or more actually do- an unlawful act of violence, either with or without a common cause or quarrel ; as if they beat a man, or hunt and kill game in another's park, chase, warren, or liberty; or do any other unlawful act with force and violence; or even do a lawful act, as removing a nuisance,, in a violent and tumultuous manner.^ The offense of riot consists in three or more persons doing an unlawful act in a violent and tumultuous manner. Or where three or more persons do any act in a violent and tumultuous manner, it is a riot.^ It must appear that the persons charged had a common purpose to do the act alleged.' § 1298. Assault and battery included. — Eiot may embrace an as- sault and battery, and the necessary difference consists in this, that (under the statute) two or more persons must engage in the unlawful M Bl. Com. 146; Underbill Cr. Kiphart v. S.. 42 Ind. 273; S. v. Ev., § 489; 1 Hawk. P. C, ch. 65, Snow, 18 Me. 346. § 1; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 992; 3 "Kiphart v. S., 42 Ind. 275. Seer Greenl. Ev., § 216; Com. v. Runnells, S. v. Brooks, 1 Hill (S. C.) 361. 10 Mass. 518, 6 Am. D. 148. See » Aron v. City of Wausau, 98 Wis^ ■Whitesides v. P., Breese (111.) 21; 592, 74 N. W. 354. See StafCord v. S., 93 Ga. 207, 19 S. E. 50. (342) § 1299 RIOT. 343 act to constitute a riot, while but one need be to constitute assault and battery. The two offenses are not necessarily the same.* In order to constitute a riot at common law, an unlawful assembly is necessary, and if, when thus assembled, they concoct a breach of the peace and in pursuance thereof execute it, this is sufficient to make a riot.° Article II. Mattees of Defense. § 1299, Terrifying not essential. — It is clear there may be a riot without terrifying any one. An unlawful assembly riotously and tumultuously disturbing the selectmen of a town, in the exercise of their duty, on a public day and in a public place, and obstructing the inhabitants of the town in, the use of their constitutional privi- lege of election, is an aggravated riot." § 1300. One person alone can not commit riot. — One person alone can not be guilty of riot unless others jointly indicted with him acted together in the unlawful act charged, such as entering a house, or other unlawful act.'' § 1301. Two or more convicted. — Eight persons were indicted for riot, five of whom were arraigned; and two of the five plead not guilty and were tried and convicted. The conviction was sustained, though the others were not tried.® § 1302. Noise and boisterousness not essential. — To disturb an- other in the enjoyment of a lawful right is a trespass, and if done by members unlawfully combined it is riot, although they were neither boisterous nor noisy: as, where the members of a union marched through the streets on a strike.^ ♦Ferguson V. P., 90 111. 512; Free- v. Bailey, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 209; land V. P., 16 111. 380; S. v. Russell, Com. v. Berry, 5 Gray (Mass.) 93; 45 N. H. 83. Contra, S. v. Ham, 54 Dixon v. S., 105 Ga. 787, 31 S. B. Me. 194; Com. v. Hall, 142 Mass. 750. See Turpin v. S., 4 Blackf. 454, 8 N. E. 324. (Ind.) 72. "Dougherty v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) » S. v. Bailey, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 180; 4 Bl. Com. 164; 1 Hawk. P. C. 209; Rex v. Scott, 3 Burr. 1262. 514. »P. V. O'Loughlin, 3 Utah 133, 1 "Com. V. Runnells, 10 Mass. 518; Pac. 653, 4 Am. C. R. 550; 3 Greenl. 3 Greenl. Bv., § 219. See Darst v. Ev., § 219; S. v. Straw, 33 Me. 554. P., 51 111. 286; S. v. York, 70 N. C. See Bell v. Mallory, 61 111. 167; Bap- 66. tist v. S., 109 Ga. 546, 35 S. E. 658. 'Hardeheck v. S., 10 Ind. 460; S. 344 hughes' ckiminal law. § 1303' Article III. Indictment. § 1303. "To terror of people"— "Unlawful assembly."— The in- dictment need not allege that the unlawful act was done to the terror of the people, nor need the proof show the same.^" An indictment for riot, under the statute, need not allege an unlawful assembly; but under the common law it is necessary.^^ § 1304. Interfering with officer. — Charging in an indictment that the defendants "did in a violent and tumultuous manner prevent the sheriff from removing from the jail a certain prisoner confined therein," sufficiently charges the offense of riot, without alleging any particular act done in a violent and tumultuous manner.^^ § 1305. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment alleging that the •defendants on the first day of September, 1888, at and withia the county of Pope, then and there being together, did riotously and Tvith force and violence assault, beat, wound, and ill-treat a certain person named, sufficiently charges a riot, and the time and place of its commission.^^ An information alleging that the defendants did ■"in a riotous, tumultuous, and violent manner assemble themselves together and then and there in a riotous, tumultuous, and violent xoanner, having then and there the present ability so to do, unlawfully attempt to commit a violent injury on the person of affiant, by then and there violently and unlawfully threatening to beat, cut, and shoot said affiant," sufficiently charges riot, under the statute.^* § 1306. Indictment as to employment of persons. — In charging an unlawful assembly to prevent a person from employing certain persons as laborers, an indictment, though in other respects correct, -will be defective if it fails to allege that such person had or was about to have in his employ such persons as laborers.^' "3 Greenl. Bv., § 219. "Green v. S., 139 Ga. 536, 35 S. "Dougherty v. P., i Scam. (111.) B. 97. 180; S. v. Boies, 34 Me. 235; S. v. "Lambert v. P., 34 111. App. 637. Hussell, 45 N. H. 83; Thayer v. S., " S. v. Acra, 2 Ind. App. 384, 28 11 Ind. 287; Com. v. Runnells, 10 N. B. 570. When not sufficient,— see Mass. 518, 6 Am. D. 148. See S. v. Blackwell v. S., 30 Tex. App. 672, Kutter, 59 Ind. 572; S. v. Dean, 71 18 S. W. 676. "Wis. 678, 33 N. W. 341; 4 Bl. Com. "Bradford v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 632, 164. 51 S. W. 379. § 1307 RIOT. 345 Article IV. Evidektoe. § 1307. Members of society. — On the trial of several persons jointly indicted and tried for riot;, it is proper to show that they were members of a secret society.^* § 1308. Bar, when not. — A conviction for assault and battery is no bar to a prosecution for riot growing out of the same transaction.^^ "S. V. Johnson, 43 S. C. 123, 20 sufficient to sustain conviction: S. E. 988. Green v. S., 109 Ga. 536, 35 S. E. 97. "Preeland v. P., 16 111. 380; Cam- Not sufficient: Tripp v. S., 109 Ga. eron Or. L., 291. Evidence held 489, 34 S. E. 1021. CHAPTEE XXX. OBSTKUCTING HIGHWAYS. Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1308-1319 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1320-1326 III. Indictment, §§ 1327-1334 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§1335-1341 Article I. Defhtition and Elements. § 1309. What constitutes highway. — The use of land by the pub- lic as a highway for a long period of time, with the knowledge or consent of the owner, either express or implied, creates a public high- way by prescription, within the meaning of the law.^ § 1310. Created by dedication. — To constitute a dedication of a road as a public highway, there must not only be an intent by the owner to dedicate but also an acceptance by the public.^ § 1311. Obstruction essential. — ^Before a charge can be maintained against a railroad company of obstructing a highway by stopping its trains on the road, public travel must be impeded by the obstruc- tion.' § 1312. Obstructing turnpike. — A turnpike road is a public high- way and an indictment will lie for an obstruction thereon as a public nuisance, although constructed by and under the control of private parties.* 'S. V. Stewart, 91 N. C. 566; Sul- Lumber Co., 84 Wis. 205, 54 N. W. livan V. S., 52 Ind. 309; Mauck v. 503; S. v. Tyler, 54 S. C. 294, 32 S. S., 66 Ind. 177; Lensing v. S. (Tex. B. 422. Cr.), 45 S. W. 572. 'Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. P., 49 111. = Mansur v. S., 60 Ind. 357; S. v. App. 540. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334, 2 S. W. 472; S. ' Com. v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. T. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; P. v. Loehfelm, (Mass.) 175. See Railroad Co. v. 102 N. y. 1, 5 N. E. 783; S. v. Paine Com., 90 Pa. St. 300. (346) § 1313 OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAYS. 347 § 1313. Public grounds. — So mueh of a public square as is around and about the court-house and devoted to the purpose of a highway becomes a part of the highway. The court-house is erected upon it, and so much of it as is used for the moving about of people, consti- tutes and is a highway.^ § 1314. Structures projecting. — The front steps leading to a dwell- ing-house are clearly a part of the building, and when they project into the highway the building is in the highway and is an obstruction thereof within the meaning of the statute.* § 1315. Railroad obstructing, — A railroad company obstructing travel on a highway by a failure to keep its tracks or bridges in repair at crossings will be liable to criminal prosecution.'' A railroad com- pany is liable for the acts of its servants in obstructing public streets or highways, notwithstanding its instructions to its servants to con- form to the law.* § 1316. Bead as laid out. — ^In a criminal -prosecution, the road to be considered is the one actually laid out by the public authorities and not as laid out on paper.^ § 1317. Intent, immaterial. — Intent is not an essential element of the offense of obstructing a highway, unless made so by statute. Therefore, if a person obstructs a highway, in good faith, believing the obstruction to be on his own land, it is no defense.^" § 1318. Obstruction not on traveled part. — Obstructing a public highway which had been traveled for many years is a violation of the law, though such obstruction may not be on that portion of the road "S. v. Ea.stman, 109 N. C. 785, 13 S. W. 229; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. S. B. 1019; S. V. Atkinson, 24 Vt. S., 87 Tenn. 746, 11 S. W. 946. See 448. See 4 Bl. Com. 167. Com. v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 20 Ky. 'Com. V. Blaisdell, 107 Mass. 234; L. 606, 47 S. W. 258. Hyde v. Middlesex, 2 Gray (Mass.) "Com. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 267; Com. v. Milliman, 13 S. & R. 112 Mass. 412. (Pa.) 403; S. v. Kean, 69 N. H. 122, "Com. v. Jackson, 10 Sup. Ct. 45 Atl. 256, 48 L. R. A. 102. (Pa.) 524. 'New York, etc., R. Co. v. S., 53 "Com. v. Dicken, 145 Pa. St. 453, N. J. L. 244, 23 Atl. 168; S. v. Louis- 22 Atl. 1043; S. v. Gould, 40 Iowa ville, etc., R. Co., 91 Tenn. 445, 19 372. 348 ' hughes' criminal law. § 1319 as laid out by the road viewers. ^^ An obstruction in a public highway, to constitute a nuisance, is not to be limited to the traveled part of the road.^^ § 1319. Obstruction is nuisance. — A public highway at common . law is a common way, "free to all the king's subjects to pass and repass at liberty," and an unauthorized obstruction is a nuisance and punishable.^^ Whoever obstructs the full enjoyment of the easement of a public highway by making deposits within the limits of the high- way, of timber, stones, or other things, to remain there and occupy a portion of such highway, is guilty of a nuisance, at common law." Aeticle II. Matters of Defense. § 1320. Koad never highway. — It is a good defense to a charge of obstructing a highway that the road in question never had been a highway by law, prescription, or otherwise. ^^ § 1321. Disproving user. — On a charge of obstructing a public road which was claimed by the prosecution to have been established by user, it is proper, in defense, to show that a proceeding had been commenced along the line in question, to establish such road, and that the witness against him had signed a petition to establish it." § 1322. Road not highway. — The prosecution relied on user to establish the existence of a public highway. The defendant offered to prove the road had been changed; that there were different lines of travel; that the road authorities did not exercise control over or repair the road in question, and that he expressly denied the right of the public to use the road. Held a good defense.' , 17 " Com. v. Dicken, 145 Pa. St. 453, '= S. v. Trove, 1 Ind. App. 553, 27 22 Atl. 1043. N. B. 878; Com. v. Noxon, 121 Mass. " S. v. Merrit, 35 Conn. 314; Com. 42; Laroe v. S., 30 Tex. App. 374, v. King, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 115, 118. 17 S. W. 934; S. v. Moore, 23 Ark. See S. V. Beal, 94 Me. 520, 48 Atl. 550; Kennedy v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 124. S. W. 590. " S. V. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 " S. v. Macy, 67 Mo. App. 326. Am. R. 117. "Houston v. P., 63 111. 186; Mai: "Com. V. King, 13 Mete. (Mass.) tin v. P., 23 111. 342. 115; S. V. Merrit, 35 Conn. 314. § 1323 OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAYS. 349 § 1323. Stopping train. — The defendant was convicted for ob- stnietiDg a train of cars by pulling the signal rope attached to a bell on the engine, whereby the train was stopped, endangering the passen- gfers. The defendant was a passenger at the time of the act charged. Held not a violation of the statute providing that "whoever obstructs any engine or carriage passing upon any railroad or endangers the safety of persons conveyed in or upon the same," shall be guilty of a nuisance.^* § 1324. Ifuisance — Benefit no diefeiise. — If the obstruction eom- piaihed of amounts to a huisancie then the court will not inquire how the public good may be affected, but will interpose and order the nuisance abated. ^^ § 1325. Removing obstruction. — ^Any person desiring to use the highway may remove the obstruction and may even, for that purpose, enter upon the land pf the party erecting or continuing it, doing as little damage as possible.^" § 1326. Taking advice, no defense. — The fact that the defendant on whose land a public road had been established was advised by his attorney that the order establishing the road w^as void is no defense to obstructing the road hj puttiilg a gdte therein. ^^ Article III. Indictment. § 1327i Description of highway. — In charging the obstruction of a highway in a town, the indictment may aver generally the obstruc- tion of the streets, of the town without designating what particular streets ; nor is it necessary to allege the incorporation of the town.^* § 1328. Statutory words, insufficient. — In charging the offense of driving on a public bicycle path, an indictment, though in the words of the statute was defective^ in that it faile'd to aver that the bicycle path was in or was a part of the public highway.^* ''Com. V. Killian, 109 Mass. 345, Me. 435; S. v. Brumfield, 83 Ind. 1 Green C. R. 193. 136. " P. v. City of St. Louis, 5 Glim. ^ Crouch v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 145, (111.) 374; P. V. Vanderbilt, 28 N. 45 S. W. 578. Y. 396. '^S. V. Finney, 99 Iowa 43, 68 N. "■ S. V. Smith, 52 Wis. 135, 8 N. W. W. 568. 870; Com. v. Ruddle, 142 PA. St. ''^ S. v. Bradford, 78 Minn. 387, 144, 21 Atl. 814; S. v. Anthoine, 40 81 N. W. 202, 47 L. R. A. 144. 350 hughes' criminal law. § 1329 § 1329. Obstructing — Stating offense. — By statute it is declared to be a misdemeanor to willfully obstruet any highway or road leading from or to any church. An indictment based on such statute charging that the defendant (with other proper averments) did willfully and unlawfully obstruct a certain road leading to and from a certain church by putting a fen'^e in said road, sufficiently states the offense.''* § 1330. Averment of obstruction. — An indictment charging the obstruction of a highway by placing a plank in and across it, without showing how or in what manner the plank caused the obstruction or whether the highway was out of repair, is defective.^^ § 1331. Description of obstruction. — An indictment for obstruct- ing a river was held defective in not definitely locating the obstruc- tion. To charge the obstruction of the "Little Kanawha river at the district of West Virginia," is bad, although in the words of the stat- ute.2« § 1332. One offense only. — Under a statute relating to the obstruc- tion of "any public road or highway," an indictment charging the de- fendant with obstructing a certain road and highway, is not bad for duplicity.^^ § 1333. Indictment sufficient. — Charging in an indictment, with other proper averments, that the defendant did obstruct a certain pub- lie road, designating it by the name by which it was known, without further description, by filling up the ditches on said road without authority, sufficiently states an offense."* § 1334. How road became highway. — It is not necessary to allege in an indictment how the road in question became a public high- way."* "S. V. Lucas, 124 N. C. 804, 32 17 S. W. 934; S. v. Eastman, 109 S. E. 553. N. C. 785, 13 S. E. 1019. ^S. V. Roanoke R. & L. Co., 109 ''^ Alexander v. S., 117 Ala. 220, 28 N. C. 860, 31 S. E. 719. So. 48. =«U. S. V. Burns, 54 Fed. 351; Cox "S. v. Madison, 63 Me. 546; Nich- V. S., 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 193. ols v. S., 89 Ind. 298. "Laroe v. S., 30 Tex. App. 374, § 1335 OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAYS, 351 Aeticle IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1335. Proof by long use. — Twenty years of uninterrupted use of a road by the public is abundantly sufficient to establish it as a public highway.^" The public use of a road and its recognition by the proper authorities by working and repairing it, with the express or implied assent of the owner of the land through which it passes, establishes it as a public highway.'^ § 1336. Proof of highway. — Where the indictment charging the offense is general in its terms, the existence of the highway may be shown by prescription or dedication.^^ § 1337. Proving highway by records. — The proceedings of high- way commissioners for laying out a public road are competent evi- dence to prove the existence of such highway, though irregular.^* But it may be shown that the proceedings were had without jurisdic- tion.'* Record evidence is not essential to establish the existence of a public highway.'^ § 1338. Other obstruction of same road. — Evidence that the de- fendant had, several years before, obstructed the same public highway, for the obstruction of which he is charged, is competent as tending to show intention.'" § 1339. Obstruction in or near town. — Evidence that the obstruc- tion of a highway was within a certain town does not support an in- dictment charging the obstruction to be near the town, where the laws governing obstructions are different outside of the town from those within.'' § 1340. Two distinct offenses. — "Continuing an obstruction" of a highway is a distinct offense from "obstructing a highway," and evi- "° Daniels v. P., 21 111. 442. =* S. v. Logue, 73 Wis. 598, 41 N. "Dimon v. P., 17 111. 421; Daniels W. 1061. V. P., 21 111. 442; S. v. Kendall, 54 == Zimmerman v. S., 4 Ind. App. S. C. 192, 32 S. B. 300. 583, 31 N. B. 550. ''S. V. Teeters, 97 Iowa 458, 66 ™Dodson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. N. W. 754. W. 78. ==S. V. Smith, 100 N. C. 550, 6 "Illinois, etc.,.R. Co. v. Com., 20 S. E. 251. Ky. L. 990, 47 S. W. 255. 352 hughes' criminal law. § 1341 dence of one will not support a charge of the other. The offenses are made distinct by statute.'* § 1341. Variancis, as to description.^-When a local description of the road sufficient to identify and fix the precise point of obstruetioA is given^ as well as the termini of the road, the latter may be disre- garded as surplusage, and proof that a public road existed at the plaii^ of obstruction is sufficient. It is not necessary to state the termini of the road. But if the termini be stated and the allegation is general describing a road leading from one place to another as having beea obstructed, then its existence between the p'oints named must be Jyroved as a inatter of essential description." «L,owe V. P., 28 111. 518; Burke r. 346; Houston v. P., 63 111. 185; Mar- P., 23 111. App. 36. See P. v. Young, tin v. P., 23 111. 342; S. v. Hume> 12 72 111. 411. Or. 133, 6 Pac. 427. "S. v. Harsh. 6 Blackf. (Ind.) CHAPTBE XXXI. SUNDAY VIOLATIONS. Abt. I. Definition and Elements, §.§ 1343-1351 II. Matters of Defense^ §§ 1352-1363 III. Indictment, §'§ 1363-1368 IV. Evidence, §§ 1369-1372 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1342. Sunday laws constitutional. — Statutes prohibiting labor on Sunday are police regulations and are not in conflict with the con- stitutional provisions of the state and federal governments relating to religion.^ § 1343. Several violations — One offense. — Several acts of violating the Sunday law on the same Sunday are regarded as but one offense.'' § 1344. Keeping open for sports. — The statute of Iowa provides that every person who shall, on Sunday, keep open any place "in which sports or games are at any time carried on or allowed" shall be fined. The game of "billiards" comes within the meaning of this statute ; and base-ball is included in "sports."^ And fishing on Sun- 'P. V. Bellet, 99 Mich. 151, 57 N. 471; S. v. Hogreiver, 152 Ind. 652, W. 1094; S. V. Judge, 39 La. 132, 1 53 N. E. 921. So. 437; S. v. Nesbit, 8 Kan. App. "Freideborn v. Com., 113 Pa. St. 104, 54 Pac. 326; S. v. Powell, 58 242, 57 Am. R. 464, 6 Atl. 160; Ruck- Ohio St. 324, 50 N. E. 900; Soon er v. S., 67 Miss. 328, 7 So. 223; P. v. Hing V. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 15 Cox, 70 Mich. 247, 38 N. W. 235. S. Ct. 730; Scales v. S., 47 Ark. 476, Contra, Albrecht v. S., 8 Tex. App. 58 Am. R. 768, 1 S. W. 769; Gunn v. 313. S., 89 Ga. 341, 15 S. E. 458; Ex parte "S. v. Miller, 68 Conn. 373, 36 Burke, 59 Cal. 6; 1 Dillon Munic. Atl. 795; S. v. O'Rourk, 35 Neb.. Corp., § 397; Cooley Const. Lim., 614, 53 N. W. 591 (sports). hughes' c. l.— 23 (353 ) 354 hughes' criminal law. § 1345 day, though on private grounds, without disturbing the peace, is with- in the statute prohibiting "sports" on that day.* § 1S45. Keeping open. — Keeping open a place of business on Sun- day and selling ice cream and meals to be eaten on the premises, is a violation of the statute forbidding the keeping open of any shop, restaurant, or place for the reception of company or for the sale or exposure of any merchandise on Sunday.^ § 1346. Base-ball included. — A statute punishing 'Tiorse-raeing, cock-fighting, or playing at cards or games of any kind" on Sunday includes base-ball, although that game is not of like kind with those- • enumerated in the statute. The object of the statute is to prevent a sdesecration of the Sabbath." § 1347. Theatre on Sunday. — Conducting a theatre or any business connected therewith on Sunday is a violation of the Sunday law pro- hibiting persons engaging in their "usual vocation" on that day.'' § 1348. Tippling house, open. — ^Where a house is so kept that ac- cess may be had thereto on the Sabbath day and facility afforded for the obtaining of intoxicating drinks, it is a tippling house. It is not necessary that the house should be kept open in all respects — its front door and windows open, as on week days — ^to be a violation.' If the proprietor of a saloon or dram-shop enters his place of business on Sunday and invites others to go in, and they drink intoxicating liquors while there, he is guilty of keeping a tippling house on Sun- day.® * P. V. Moses, 140 N. Y. 214, 35 N. 209. See P. v. Hughes, 90 Mich. E. 499. 368, 51 N. W. 518; P. v. Crowley, 'S. V. Jacques, 69 N. H. 220, 40 90 Mich. 366, 51 N. W. 517; Cooper Atl. 398. V. S., 88 Ga. 441, 14 S. B. 592; »S. V. Williams, 35 Mo. App. 541; Com. v. McNeese, 156 Mass. 231, In re Rupp, 53 N. Y. Supp. 927, 23 30 N. E. 1021; Williams v. S., 100 App. Div. 468. ' Ga. 511, 28 S. E. 624; Morganstem 'Ross V. S., 9 Ind. App. 35, 36 v. Com., 94 Va. 787, 26 S. E. 402; N. E. 167; Quarles v. S., 55 Ark. 10, S. v. Binnard, 21 Wash. 349, 58 17 S. W. 269; St. Joseph v. Elliott, Pac. 210. 47 Mo. App. 418. "Johnson v. City of Chattanooga, 'Krover v. P., 78 111. 298; Koop 97 Tenn. 247, 36 S. W. 1092. But V. P., 47 111. 329; Whltcomb v. S., see Purefoy v. P., 65 111. App. 167; 30 Tex. App. 269, 17 S. W. 258; P. Hall v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 173. v. Schottey, 116 Mich. 1, 74 N. W. § 1349 SUNDAY VIOLATIONS. 355 § 1349. Tippling house — Bar-room ; social club. — Eooms connected Tvith a bar-room, such as a restaurant or billiard hall, in which liquors are served to persons, are regarded as parts of the saloon (access being had from one to the other) and such is a violation of the Sunday law.^" A social club furnishing intoxicating liquors on Sunday to its own members only, to be drunk on the premises where delivered, is guilty of keeping open a tippling house.^^ § 1350. Barber-shops. — In some of the states it is held that the keeping open of a barber-shop and shaving persons on Sunday may, in some respects, be a necessity, but it is not so within the meaning of the Sunday law.^^ § 1351. Excursions on Sunday. — The statute of Georgia against running excursions on Sunday relates only to the superintendent of transportation or officer having charge of the business of that depart- ment of the railroad company, and does not include others in making up trains, etc., working under the direction of the person so in charge." Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1352. Barber-shops. — A statute prohibiting barber-shops opening and doing business on Sunday is unconstitutional and void as being class legislation.^* § 1353. Drug stores opening. — Prima facie, the selling of pepper- , mint lozenges on Sunday by a druggist who deals in medicines, comes ^°P. V. Ringsted, 90 Mich. 371, 51 326, 33 S. W. 784; S. v. Wellott, 54 N. W. 519; Harmon v. S., 92 Ga. Mo. App. 310; S. v. Frederick, 45 455, 17 S. E. 666; Warwick v. S., 48 Ark. 347, 55 Am. R. 555; Eden v. P., Ark. 27, 2 S. W. 253; P. v. Cox, 70 161 111. 306, 43 N. E. 1108. See Mich. 247, 38 N. W. 235; Pierce v. § 1352. S., 109 Ind. 535, 10 N. B. 302. En- >' Craven v. S., 109 Ga. 266, 34 S. couraging idleness forms no part of E. 561. the offense of keeping open a tip- "Eden v. P., 161 111. 309, 43 N. pling house on Sunday: Fant v. E. 1108; S. v. Krech, 10 Wash. 166, P., 45 111. 262. 38 Pac. 1001. Contra, Ex parte "Mohrman v. S., 105 Ga. 709, 32 Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803; S. E. 143; S. V. Gelpi, 48 La. 520, P. v. Belief, 99 Mich. 151, 57 N. W. 19 So. 468. 1094; S. v. Petit, 74 Minn. 376, 77 "Com. V. Waldman, 140 Pa. St. N. W. 225. See also P. v. Havnor, 89, 21 Atl. 248; Com. v. Dextra, 143 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541; Com. Mass. 28, 8 N. B. 756; Ungericht v. v. Waldman, 140 Pa. St. 89, 21 Atl. S., 119 Ind. 379, 21 N. E. 1082. But 248; Com. v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28, see P. V. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 8 N. E. 756; Ungericht v. S., 119 N. E. 541; S. v. Granneman, 132 Mo. Ind. 379, 21 N. E. 1082; S. v. Frede- 356 hughes' criminal law. §1354: within the meaning of the exception to the act, even though the pur- chaser did not ask for it as medicine, or the seller inquire of the pur- chaser if he wishes it as a medicine.^' But the exception allowing drug stores to keep open on Sunday does not allow the sale of other articles than medicines, such as tobacco, cigars, soda water and the like." § 1354. Mining operations. — Operating the pumps and fans of a. coal mine on Sunday is a violation of the law. It is no defense that such work was done to prevent the mine from flooding, in the absence of proof that some other device could not have been employed without unreasonable loss of time and expense.^^ § 1355. Selling newspapers. — Selling newspapers on Sunday is not a work of "necessity or charity" under the statute prohibiting "world- ly employment or business" on Sunday.^* § 1356. Conve3ring picnicers. — Conveying persons to a picnic on Sunday is not a work of "necessity or charity" within the meaning of the Sunday law.^° But running an excursion train on Sunday was held not to be a violation imder a statute containing an exception, of "necessity or charity."^" § 1357. Hotels selling cigars. — The sale of cigars and tobacco by hotel-keepers to their transient guests is not a violation of the Sunday law when sold on Sunday.^^ rick, 45 Ark. 347, 55 Am. R. 555; S. 8 S. W. 926; Nelson v. S., 25 Tex. V. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326, 33 S. App. 599, 8 S. W. 927. W. 784. See "Constitutional Law." " Com. v. Matthews, 152 Pa. St. >»Reg. V. Howarth, 33 U. C. Q. 166, 25 Atl. 548. B. 537, 2 Green C. R. 76. "Dugan v. S., 125 Ind. 130, 25 "Com. V. Goldsmith, 176 Mass. N. E. 171; Dorsey v. S., 125 Ind. 104, 57 N. E. 212; S. v. Ohmer, 34 600, 25 N. E. 350. Mo. App. 115, 11 Cr. L. Mag. 378; "Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Com., Com. V. Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68, 17 Ky. L. 223, 30 S. W. 878. See Sul- 21 N. E. 228; Splane v. Com. (Pa.), livan v. Maine, etc., R. Co., 82 Me. 12 Atl. 431. See Com. v. Ryan, 15 196, 19 Atl. 169; Horton v. Norwalt Pa. Co. Ct. R. 223; P. v. Scran- Tramway Co., 66 Conn. 272, 33 Atl. ton, 61 Mich. 244, 28 N. W. 81. 914. Contra, Com. v. Rees, 10 Pa. Contra, Todd v. S., 30 Tex. App. Co. Ct. 545. 667, 18 S. W. 642. =i Wilkinson v. S., 59 Ind. 416, 26 "Shipley v. S., 61 Ark. 216, 32 Am. R. 84; Com. v. Moore, 145 Mass. S. W. 489, 33 S. W. 107. See Cleary 244, 13 N. E. 893; Mueller v. S., 76 V. S., 56 Ark. 124, 19 S. W. 313; Ind. 310, 40 Am. R. 245. Hennersdorf v. S., 25 Tex. App. 597, <§ 1358 SUNDAY VIOLATIONS. 357 § 1358. Bakers, milk dealers. — Bakers bona fide engaged in their business of baking on Sunday come within the statutory exception, their work being regarded as a work of necessity ; and so is the selling •of milk a work of necessity.^^ § 1359. Feed farm stock. — Hauling corn to feed hogs or other farm animals on Sunday is a work of necessity and not a violation •of the Sunday law. Horses, hogs, cows and other domestic or farm animals must of necessity be fed on Sunday.^^ § 1360. Harvesting grain ; preserving melons. — The defendant's wheat was "dead ripe" and a rain upon it would have seriously injured it. Cutting it on Sunday in that condition was clearly a work of ne- •cessity and not an ofEense.^* Under a statute forbidding persons to engage at common labor or in their usual vocations on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday (works of charity and necessity only excepted), one engaged in raising watermelons for the market may work on that day when necessary to preserve the fruits of his toil from waste and decay, without incurring the penalty of the law.''^ § 1361. Labor disturbing peace. — The statute of Illinois provides that "whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by labor, amusement or diversion on Sunday, shall be fined." No offense is committed under this statute unless the labor is of a character to dis- turb the peace and good order of society.^* § 1362. Religious belief, — It is no defense to a charge of violating i:he Sunday law that the defendant conscientiously believes in observ- ing, and does observe, the seventh day, instead of the first day of the week, as Sunday.^' Article III. Indictment. § 1363. To whom goods sold. — An information alleging that the ■defendant unlawfully followed "his usual avocation on Sunday, to '''Com. V. Crowley, 145 Mass. 430, ""Wilkinson v. S., 59 Ind. 416, 2 14 N. E. 459; City of Topeka v. Am. C. R. 596, 26 Am. R. 84. Hempstead, 58 Kan. 328, 49 Pac. 87. " Foil v. P., 66 111. App. 405. Sea '" Edgerton v. S., 67 Ind. 588. Johnson v. P., 42 111. App. 549. =" Turner v. S., 67 Ind. 595; S. v. "Parker v. S., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 476, ■Goff, 20 Ark. 289; Johnson v. P., 42 1 S. W. 202; Liberman v. S., 26 111. App. 594. Neb. 464, 42 N. W. 419. 358 hughes' criminal law. § 1364 wit : selling and delivering merchandise to sundry persons and wait- ing on customers," sufficiently charges an offense, without stating tO' whom sold or the kind of merchandise.^* § 1364. Exceptions in statute. — ^Under the statute of Massachu- setts prohibiting certain kinds of work on Sunday, in drawing an in- dictment or complaint it is not necessary to negative the exceptions contained in the statute."® § 1365. Keeping open for sports. — ^Under a statute providing against the keeping open any place on Sunday "in which any sports or games of chance are at any time carried on or allowed," a com- plaint alleging that the defendant kept open on Sunday a place in which certain sports known as billiards are carried on sufficiently charges an offense imder the statute.'" § 1366. Indictment sufficient — Base-ball. — Charging in an infor- mation that the defendant, on a day named, commonly called Sun- day, unlawfully engaged in playing a game of base-ball where an ad- mittance fee was charged and was paid by the spectators, sufficiently states an offense as defined by a statute prohibiting persons from play- ing base-ball on Sunday, where a fee is charged.^^ § 1367. Date alleged not Sunday. — An indictment alleging that the offense was committed on June 20, 1883, the same being the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, whereas in fact the said June 20 was Wednesday, is not defective ; stating the wrong day is immaterial.'" § 1368. Information sufficient — Selling liquor. — An information alleging that the defendant sold drinks of whiskey on Sunday, he "being then and there a liquor dealer," is sufficient, under the Sunday law prohibiting any "dealer in merchandise" from bartering or selling =»S. V. Saurbaugh, 122 Ind. 208, "S. v. Miller, 68 Conn. 373, 36 23 N. E. 720; S. v. Meyer, 1 Speer Atl. 795. (S. C.) 305. »'S. V. Hogreiver, 152 Ind. 652, =» Com. V. De Voe, 159 Mass. 101, 53 N. B. 921, 45 L. R. A. 504. 34 N. E. 85; Com. v. Shannihan, 145 "Roy v. S., 91 Ind. 417; S. v.. Mass. 99. See Cleary v. S., 56 Ark. Drake, 64 N. C. 589; 1 Bish. Or. 124, 19 S. W. 313. Proc. (3d ed.), § 399; Whar. Cr.- Pl. & Pr. (8th ed.), § 121. § 1369 SUNDAY VIOLATIONS. 359 goods or merchandise on Sunday ; and it need not allege that the de- fendant was a "retail liquor dealer" or "trader in lawful business.'"' Article IV. Evidence. § 1369. Tippling house — ^Evidence of any Sunday. — In the proof of keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day, the prosecution is not confined to the Sunday mentioned in the indictment, but may give evidence of any Sunday within the statute of limitations.^* § 1370. Burden of proof. — The burden is on the defendant to show that the operating of a pump and fan on Sunday in a mine to prevent overflow of water and gas was a work of "necessity."^° § 1371. Other sales. — On a charge of selling goods on Sunday, evidence of other sales to other persons than that charged in the in- dictment is admissible.'" § 1372. Jurisdiction — State or city. — The state does not surrender its jurisdiction over the ofEense of keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day, by conferring jurisdiction of such offenses on the city authorities, unless exclusive jurisdiction was given the city.'' " Day v. S., 21 Tex. App. 213, 17 »» Shipley v. S., 61 Ark. 216, 32 S. W. 262. S. W. 489, 33 S. W. 107; Com. v. "Koop V. P., 47 111. 330; Robin- Gillespie, 146 Pa. St. 546, 10 Pa. Co. son V. S., 38 Ark. 548, 4 Am. Ct. 89, 23 Atl. 393. 0. R. 571; Lucas v. S., 92 Ga. 454, »> Clements v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 34 17 S. B. 668. See Frasier v. S., S. W. Ill; Brown v. S., 38 Tex, Cr. 5 Mo. 536; S. v. Eskridge, 1 Swan 597, 44 S. W. 176. (Tenn.) 413. ^ Seibold v. P., 86 111. 34. CHAPTEE XXXII. i ■i ESTTOXICATING LIQUORS. Art, I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1373-1385 II. Persons Liable, §§ 1386-1397 III. Matters of Defense, §§ 1398-1412 IV. Power to Eegulate Sale, §§ 1413-1429 V. Indictments, §§ 1430-1446 VI. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1447-1476 VII. Jurisdiction; Venue, §§ 1477-1480 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1373. Statutory definition. — The statute of Illinois is as follows: "Whoever not having a license to keep a dram-shop, shall, by himself or another, either as principal, clerk or servant, directly or indirectly, sell any intoxicating liquor in any less quantity than one gallon, or in any quantity, to be drunk upon the premises, or in or upon any adja- cent room, building, yard, premises, or place of public resort," shall be fined or imprisoned, or both.^ § 1374. What is included. — The words "intoxicatiag liquors" in- clude a larger class of cases than "spirituous liquors." All spirituous liquors are intoxicating, but all intoxicating liquors are not spirituous. Permented liquors are not, in common parlance, spirituous liquors.^ § 1375. Whiskey, beer, ale, cider, wine. — No proof is required to show that whiskey, wine, brandy, lager beer and the like are intoxicat- '111. Stat, ch. 413, § 2. 118; Smith v. S., 19 Conn. 493; AU- = S. V. Adams, 51 N. H. 568; Com. red v. S., 89 Ala. 112, 8 So. 56; V. Herrick, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 465; Welsbrodt v. S., 50 Ohio St. 192, 33 Com. V. Livermore, 4 Gray (Mass.) N. E. 603; Bell v. S., 91 Ga. 227,^ 18 18, 20; S. V. Moore, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) S. E. 288; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1221. (360) §1376 INTOXICATING LIQUORS, 361 ing. The court will take judicial notice that they are intoxicating.' But other articles, such as rice-beer and cider, are not so regarded; they must be shown to be intoxicating.* Ale and eider are included in the term "intoxicating liquors," if they produce intoxication when used as a beverage. But whether they are intoxicating or not is a question of fact for the jury, and not a question of law.^ If the proof shows that the liquor sold was "lager beer," that is sufficient, without further proof, that it is an intoxicating liquor." If the evidence proves that "beer" was sold by the accused, that is sufficient on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors unlawfully.'' § 1376. Name of liquor immaterial. — It matters not by what name the liquor is called. The unlawful sale by any name is sufficient to sustain a conviction ; selling beer under the name of "pop," or whiskey by the name of "bitters," and the like, is a violation.* § 1377. Selling as medicine. — One authorized to sell medicine ought not to be held guilty of violating the laws relating to retailing because the purchaser of a medicine containing alcohol misuses it and becomes intoxicated; but, on the other hand, these laws can not be evaded by selling as a beverage intoxicating liquors containing drugs, barks, or seeds which have medical qualities.' § 1378. Drinking on premises— Street. — The street or alley ad- jacent to the place of sales, where persons are in the habit of meet- ing to drink beer, comes within the meaning of "place of public re- 'S. V. Tisdale, 54 Minn. 105, 55 'Bandalow v. P., 90 111. 218; God- N. W. 903; Briffitt v. S., 58 Wis. 39, freidson v. P., 88 111. 286; S. v. 16 N. W. 39; Freiberg v. S., 94 Ala. Goyette, 11 R. I. 592, 3 Am. C. R. 91, 10 So. 703; Fenton v. S., 100 Ind. 282; Hansberg v. P., 120 111. 21, 8 598; S. V. Packer, 80 N. C. 439; Mad- N. E. 857. Contra, Briffitt v. S., 58 dox V. S. (Tex. Or.), 55 S. W. 832. "Wis. 39, 16 N. W. 39; S. v. Cloughly, 'Bell V. S., 91 Ga. 227, 18 S. B. 73 Iowa 626, 35 N. W. 652; S. v. 288; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1221; S. v. May, 52 Kan. 53, 34 Pac. 407; Welsh Biddle, 54 N. H. 379; S. v. Giersch, v. S., 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 883. 98 N. C. 720, 4 S. E. 193; S. v. Col- ' S. v. Currie, 8 N. D. 545, 80 N. W. , well, 3 R. I. 284; Hewitt v. P., 87 475; S: v. Jenkins, 32 Kan. 477, 4 111. App. 367, 186 111. 336, 57 N. E. Pac. 809. Contra. Hansberg v. P.,. 1077 (farmer selling cider). 120 111. 23, 8 N. B. 857. "Hertel v. P., 78 111. App. 109; S. 'Godfriedson v. P., 88 111. 286; S. V. Biddle, 54 N. H. 379; 1 Am. C. R. v. Hickman, 54 Kan. 225, 38 Pac. 490; Lunenberger v. S., 74 Miss. 379, 256. See Malone v. S. (Tex. Or.), 21 So. 134; Hewitt v. P., 186 111. 51 S. W. 381. 336, 57 N. E. 1077; S. v. Starr, 67 'Carl v. S., 87 Ala. 17, 6 So. 118, Me. 242, 2 Am. C. R. 391; Com. v. 8 Am. C. R. 407; King v. S., 58 Bios, 116 Mass. 56. See Gregory v. Miss. 737; Chapman v. S., 100 Ga. S., 110 Iowa 624, 82 N. W. 335. 311, 27 S. E. 789. 362 hughes' criminal law. § 1379 sort."^" If sales of intoxicating liquor be made "to be dmnk on the premises" where sold, it is a violation, although the liquors be not actually drunk on the premises; the intent is the gist of the of- fense.^^ A druggist obtained a license to sell intoxicating liquors, which provided that he should not sell to be drunk on the premises where sold. Such license is no defense if he sells to be drunk on the premises where sold.^^ § 1379. Continuing offense — ^Time. — Where the offense of being a common seller is set out in the indictment, with a continuendo, time is material, and the evidence must be confined to the acts which oc- curred within the days alleged.^^ § 1380. Shift or other evasion. — A boy went to a saloon and called for some whiskey and the accused said he could not let him have it. The boy afterwards went to a barn which was near the saloon, where he found a half -pint bottle of whiskey on a rock. He took it and left twenty-five cents in its place. The circumstances were sufiicient to prove this to be a mere shift to evade the law, and it was held to he a violation.^* A witness testified that he had purchased cigarettes from the accused and was given a driuk of whiskey ; that he was invited in another room and took the drink of whiskey and came out; that he never bought any whiskey from the accused. He further testified, on being pressed to answer, that the actions of others at accused's place of business induced him to think that he could get whiskey if he bought cigarettes, as they had done, and gotten whiskey. It was a fact for the jury to determine whether the accused was guilty of unlawfully sell- ing whiskey to the witness, and the mere declaration of the witness that he did not buy it was not conclusive that a sale of whiskey was not made.^° § 1381. Shift, by giving away. — The defendant offered to prove that during the month of May, before the finding of the indictment, witnesses had bought from him various articles in which he dealt, " Bandalow v. P., 90 111. 220. See "^ Spake v. P., 89 111. 620. Eisenman v. S., 49 Ind. 511, 1 Am. " S. v. Small, 80 Me. 452, 14 Atl. C. R. 483; 2 McClaln Cr. L., § 1247; 942; S. v. Ingalls, 59 N. H. 88; 2 Whaley v. S., 87 Ala. 83, 6 So. 380. McClaln Cr. L., § 1244. ^ Com. V. Luddy, 143 Mass. 563, " Stultz v. S., 96 Ind. 456. 10 N. E. 448; Rater v. S., 49 Ind. "Archer v. S., 45 Md. 33, 2 Am. 507. C. R. 406. 1382 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 363 ich. as tobacco, cigars and snuff, paying full value and receiving full ilue in return, and upon these occasions they were invited by the jfendant to take a drink with him; that others, when settling lis, were so invited ; that this custom extended over a period of sev- a\ years; that a doctor attempted to purchase whiskey from him )out the time he was charged with making unlawful sales and that ; refused to sell to him at any price ; that he also refused to sell to ck persons. Held not competent as a defense, the evidence showing lat the defendant resorted to a shift to evade the law, by selling garettes at ten cents and giving the purchaser a drink of whiskey.^® § 1382. Disorderly house — One sale sufficient. — Under a statute hich provides that if any person sh&U sell any of the liquors men- aned, including lager beer, without a license, such person shall be ild as a keeper of a disorderly house, a single sale of such liquors ithout a license constitutes an offense. ^^ § 1383. Sales to minor, intent. — A sale of intoxicating liquor made a minor without authority is an illegal sale, although the seller )es not know or believe him to be a minor.^^ Any and all persons iving or not having a license to keep a dram-shop can not lawfully 11 intoxicating liquors to minors, without the written order of the irent or guardian of the minor. ^° § 1384. Furnishing to minor. — One who furnishes intoxicating juors to a minor or to a person who is in the habit of getting intoxi- ted violates the law, whether he is engaged in the business of selling ch liquors or not.^** The mother sent her minor child with money a saloon to buy intoxicating liquor for the mother's use, which was Id to the minor by the keeper of the saloon, and the child delivered e liquor to her mother. Held not a sale to the minor within the eaning of the statute.^^ '"Archer v. S., 45 Md. 33, 2 Am. Grange, 104 Iowa 530, 73 N. W. R. 407; Com. v. Shayer, 8 Mete. 1038. See Fielding v. S. (Tex. Cr.), lass.) 525. 52 S. "W. 69. " S. V. Pay, 44 N. J. L. 474, 4 Am. " Johnson v. P., 83 111. 434. R. 30; Abel v. S., 90 Ala. 631, 8 ^° S. v. Best, 108 N. C. 747, 12 S. . 760; Com. v. Tay, 146 Mass. E. 907; Burnett v. S., 92 Ga. 474, 6, 15 N. E. 503. But see S. v. 17 S. E. 858; S. v. Hubbard, 60 Iowa lirorf, 64 N. J. L. 412, 45 Atl. 786. 466, 15 N. W. 287; Foster v. S., 45 " Com. V. Hays, 150 Mass. 506, 23 Ark. 361. E. 216; Com. V. Julius, 143 Mass. ^'Com. v. Lattinville, 120 Mass. 2, 8 N. E. 898; Com. v. Murray, 385; Wallace v. S., 54 Ark. 542, 16 3 Mass. 508; Fielding v. La S. W. 571; S. v. Walker, 103 N. C. 364 hughes' ckiminal law. §1385 § 1385. Sales on election day. — The law forbidding the sale of in- toxicating liquors on election day is not confined to the time from the opening to the closing of the polls of the election, but includes the twenty-four hours of that day.^^ The giving away of intozicating liquors on election day, though only as an act of hospitality, is a vio- lation.^* Article II. Persons Liable. § 1386. Principal liable for clerk's acts. — The principal is liable for unlawful sales made by his clerk, agent or servant, although such sales were made without his knowledge, and in violation of his in- structions.^* § 1387. Principal liable with clerk. — Every sale of intoxicating liquor by an agent is a sale by the principal, and is also a sale by the agent, making both liable. This will include the wife of the accused who sells for him.^^ It is not necessary to prove that the clerk had no license to sell intoxicating liquors, in order to hold his principal liable for such sales.^* § 1388. Principal, when not liable. — The clerk of the defendant made a sale of intoxicating liquor to an habitual drunkard at the de- fendant's saloon, when the defendant was not present. It can not be 413, 9 S. E. 582. Contra, P. v. Gar- rett, 68 Mich. 487, 36 N. "W. 234, 8 Am. C. R. 399. ^^Com. V. Murphy, 95 Ky. 38, 23 S. W. 655; Kane v. Com., 89 Pa. St. 622; Schuck v. S., 50 Ohio St. 493, 34 N. E. 663; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1265; Rose v. S., 107 Ga. 697, 33 S. E. 439. ''Cearfoss v. S., 42 Md. 403, 1 Am. C. R. 461. ^Mullinlx V. P., 76 111. 213; Mc- Cutcheon v. P., 69 111. 608; Banks v. City of Sullivan, 78 111. App. 298; P. V. Longwell, 120 Mich. 311, 79 N. W. 484; S. V. Curtiss, 69 Conn. 86, 36 Atl. 1014; S. V. Dow, 21 Vt. 484; Schmidt V. S., 14 Mo. 137; S. v. Kittelle, 110 N. C. 560, 15 S. E. 103; Mogler v. S., 47 Ark. 110, 14 S. W. 473; P. v. Blake, 52 Mich. 566, 18 N. W. 360; Noecker v. P., 91 111. 494; Car- roll V. S., 63 Md. 551, 3 Atl. 29; Fahey v. S., 62 Miss. 402; Loeb v. S., 75 Ga. 258. Contra, Lathrope v. S., 51 Ind. 192, 1 Am. C. R. 468; S. V. Hayes, 67 Iowa 27, 24 N. W. 575, 6 Am. C. R. 337; S. v. Priester, 43 Minn. 373, 45 N. W. 712; P. v. Hughes, 86 Mich. 180, 48 N. W. 945; Anderson v. S., 22 Ohio St. 305; S. V. Pindley, 45 Iowa 435; Johnson v. S., 83 Ga. 553, 10 S. E. 207; S. v. Mahoney, 23 Minn. 181. ^S. V. Haines, 35 N. H. 207-209; Rex V. Crofts, 2 Strange 1120; Com. V. Sinclair, 138 Mass. 493; S. v. Kriechbaum, 81 Iowa 633, 47 N. W. 872; P. V. Barnes, 113 Mich. 213, 71 N. W. 504; S. v. O'Connor, 65 Mo. App. 324. =»S. V. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 8 Pac. 420, 6 Am. C. R. 307; S. v. Benoon, 31 W. Va. 122, 5 S. B. 315; Carroll v. S., 63 Md. 551, 3 Atl. 29; S. V. Kittelle, 110 N. C. 560, 15 &. E. 103. § 1389 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 365 presumed from a single unlawful sale that the clerk was authorized by his principal to thus violate the law; the presumption would be that the clerk was authorized to make none but lawful sales.^^ § 1389. Sales by wife. — The wife sold whiskey in the absence of her husband, and there was no evidence to show that her husband authorized her to sell. Held insufficient to sustain a conviction of the husband. The wife alone would be responsible.''^ But for the acts of the wife, done in the presence of her husband, he is presumed to be liable.^* § 1390. Partners liable for sales by each other. — The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor by one partner of a firm will make the other liable, though the latter be absent when such sale is made, and had no knowledge of and did not give his consent to such sale.^* § 1391. Clerk or manager liable. — ^A clerk selling intoxicating liquors for his employer, who has no license, is liable, whether he knew or did not know that his employer had no license.'^ The super- intendent or general manager of the place where liquors are sold is liable, as well as the principal, where he has supervision.^^ § 1392. Aiding and abetting.^A person employed at making change for others who were selling beer was acting in conjunction with them, and aiding in making the sales.*' § 1393. Druggists and physicians liable. — ^Druggists and physi- cians are not excepted from the provisions of the law making it a criminal offense to sell intoxicating liquors without a license. They stand on the same footing with other dealers.** A statute permitting " S. V. Mahoney, 23 Minn. 181, 2 »' P. v. Price, 74 Mich. 37, 41 N. W. Am. C. R. 408; Parker v. S., 4 Ohio 853. St 563. '^Stevens v. P., 67 111. 590; S. v. '"Pennybaker v. S., 2 Blackf. Dow, 21 Vt. 484; Jacobi v. S., 59 (Ind.) 484; Com. v. Lafayette, 148 Ala. 71, 3 Am. C. R. 157. Mass. 130, 19 N. E. 26. »» Johnson v. P., 83 111. 434; Cruse "'Com. V. "Walsh, 165 Mass. 62, 10 v. Aden, 127 111. 238, 20 N. E. 73; Am. C. R. 337, 42 N. E. 500; U. S. S. v. Murdoch, 71 Me. 454; Com. v. V. Bonham, 31 Fed. 808; S. v. Ekan- Ahearn, 160 Mass. 300, 35 N. E. 853; ger, 8 N. Dak. 559, 80 N. W. 482. Zeller v. S., 46 Ind. 304. "Whitton V. S., 37 Miss. 379; Sel- "Wright v. P., 101 111. 137; Bar- lers V. S., 98 Ala. 72, 13 So. 530; ton v. S., 99 Ind. 89; U. S. v. Smith, Waller v. S., 38 Ark. 656. But see 45 Fed. 115; S. v. McBrayer, 98 Acree v. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 353. N. C. 619, 2 S. B. 755; Stormes v. 366 hughes' criminal law. § 1394 druggists to sell intoxicating liquors when the same are prescribed hy an authorized physician will not warrant a druggist who is a regis- tered physician to sell such liquors on his own prescription.'^ Sales of intoxicating liquors made by a practicing physician for medicine without a license or permit from the proper authorities, are violations of the dram-shop law.^° § 1394. Social clubs liable. — Persons who organize into a society or club for social enjojTnent, by the election of oflBcers and adoption of by-laws (their object being to sell tickets to persons who becomfi members, to be punched when presented at the bar for drinks), violate the statute.^' Where the evidence showed that a club was organized, and out of its common fund purchased intoxicating liquors in the name of the club for the use of its members; that such liquors were served to the members of the club by a steward, and were paid for when served, or charged to the member's account with the club, it was held to be a violation.'* § 1395. Club, when not liable. — If several persons unite in buying intoxicating liquors, by organizing themselves into a club or associa- tion, and distribute the liquor among themselves, they do not thus violate the statute, and the intent with which they do so is immate- rial.'* One representing his society at a picnic can not lawfully sell Com., 20 Ky. L. 1434, 49 S. W. 451; v. Sainer, 59 Iowa 26, 12 N. W. 753; Eastham v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1639, Marmont v. S., 48 Ind. 21, 1 Am. 49 S. W. 795; S. v. Witty, 74 Mo. C. R. 447; Martin v. S., 59 Ala. 34, App. 550; Woods v. S., 36 Ark. 36; 3 Am. C. R. 287; P. v. Andrews, 115 Carson v. S., 69 Ala. 235. See Com. N. Y. 428, 22 N. E. 358; P. v. Soule, V. Tate (Mass.), 59 N. E. 646. 74 Mich. 250, 41 N. W. 908; Com. "'S. V. Anderson, 81 Mo. 78; Brin- v. Loesch, 153 Pa. St. 502, 26 Atl. son V. S., 89 Ala. 105, 8 So. 527. 208; Com. v. Ryan, 152 Mass. 283, «'Noecker v. P., 91 111. 496; Carl 25 N. E. 465; S. v. Bacon Club, 44 V. S., 87 Ala. 17, 6 So. 118, 8 Am. Mo. App. 86. C. R. 406; S. v. Fleming, 32 Kan. ''Newark v. Essex Club, 53 N. J. '588, 5 Pac. 19, 5 Am. C. R. 326; L. 99, 20 Atl. 769; P. v. Soule, 74 Chapman v. S., 100 Ga. 311, 27 S. Mich. 250, 41 N. W. 908; S. v. Farm- B. 789. Contra, Ball v. S., 50 Ind. ers' Social, etc., Club, 73 Md. 97, 595, 1 Am. C. R. 477; S. v. Wray, 72 20 Atl. 783; S. v. St. Louis Club, N. C. 253, 1 Am. C. R. 481; P. v. 125 Mo. 308, 28 S. W. 604; 2 McClain Hinchman, 75 Mich. 587, 42 N. W. Cr. L., § 1240. 1006; S. v. Aulman, 76 Iowa 624, '"Com. v. Pomphret, 137 Mass. 41 N. W. 379; S. v. Huff, 76 Iowa 564; S. v. St. Louis Club, 125 Mo. 200, 40 N. W. 720; Nixon v. S., 76 308, 28 S. W. 604; Seim v. S., 55 Ind. 524; S. v. Larrimore, 19 Mo. Md. 566, 39 Am. R. 419; P. v. Adel- 391. phi Club, 149 N. Y. 5, 43 N. B. 410. "Rickart v. P., 79 111. 87, 2 Am. Contra, S. v. Shumate, 44 W. Va. C. R. 385; S. v. Horacek, 41 Kan. 490, 29 S. E. 1001. 87, 21 Pac. 204; Town of Cantril § 1396 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 367 intoxicating liquors to persons not members of the society. He must know who are entitled to buy.*" § 1396. Common seller. — It has been decided that proof of three different sales would be sufficient to authorize a conviction for being a common seller.*^ § 1397. Hotel-keeper making sales. — ^A statute which permits hotel-keepers to serve intoxicating liquors to their guests at meals, when meals are desired and in good faith ordered, will not protect a hotel-keeper who sells such liquors where no meal is ordered.*^ Article III. Matters oe Defense. § 1398. Knowledge, intent immaterial. — The statute makes the sale to a person in the habit of getting intoxicated a crime, no matter whether the accused knew of such habit or not, or that the liquor was or was not intoxicating ; and also the same rule governs as to sales to minors.*' Guilty knowledge is not an essential element of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors ; and whoever has a license, whether he conducts the business personally, or by servants, is bound at his own peril to know the law and keep within its terms.** §1399. Purchasing for others: contributing; aiding. — One who purchases intoxicating liquors for another (unless for a minor or a person in the habit of getting intoxicated) and receives back only the amount of money he paid for the liquor commits no offense : he is merely the agent for the actual purchaser.*^ Where several persons to- "Com. V. Loesch, 153 Pa. St. 502, Gould, 158 Mass. 499, 33 N. E. 656; 26 AU. 208. Com. v. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. 615, 21 Atl. "S. V. Day, 37 Me. 244, citing 7. Contra, Hunter v. S., 101 Ind. Com. V. Odlin, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 243, 5 Am. C. R. 338; Moore v. S., 275. 65 Ind. 382; Falko v. P., 30 Mich. '=In re Kinzel, 59 N. Y. Supp. 682, 200; P. v. Garrett, 68 Mich. 487, 36 28 Misc. 622. N. W. 234, 8 Am. C. R. 401; 1 Mc- *=Humpeler v. P., 92 111. 402; Far- Clain Cr. L., § 128; Farrell v. S., 32 mer v. P., 77 111. 324; Ulrich v. Com., Ohio St. 456. 6 Bush (Ky.) 400; S. v. Hartflel, 24 "Corn. v. Sinclair, 138 Mass. 493; Wis. 60; Barnes v. S., 19 Conn. 398; S. v. Downs, 116 N. C. 1064, 21 S. E. S. V. O'Neil, 58 Vt. 140, 2 Atl. 586, 689; McMillan v. S., 18 Tex. App. 6 Am. C. R. 328; Pike v. S., 40 Tex. 375; S. v. Chastain, 19 Or. 176, 23 Cr. 613, 51 S. W. 395; King v. S., Pac. 963; Com. v. Holstine, 132 Pa. 66 Miss. 502, 6 So. 188; S. v. Ward, St. 357, 19 Atl. 273. 75 Iowa 637, 38 N. W. 765; Com. v. «Du Bois v. S., 87 Ala. 101, 6 So. 3G8 hughes' criminal law. § 1400 gether make up a sum of money to purchase intoxicating liquors f(»> their use, and one of them procures it with the money so contributed, he does not violate the law.*" The person who purchases intoxicating liquors is not guilty of aiding or abetting in the sale of such liquors;" § 1400. Prosecution urging violations — ^Permit unauthorized. — Where a representative of a city, as, for instance, the city attorney, furnishes money and gives instructions to persons to purchase intoxi- cating liquors from a druggist not having a permit to sell such liquors,, for the purpose of prosecuting him, the city can not recover a penalty for such violations.** A city or village will not be allowed to collect, a penalty from one for selling liquors unlawfully, by insisting that a "permit" which the city or village had issued was not sufficient to au- thorize the defendant to sell liquors.*' § 1401. Giving, treating. — The giving of a glass of intoxicatiag liquor at one's own house or elsewhere to a friend, as a mere act of courtesy or hospitality, without a purpose of gain or profit, is not a. violation of the dram-shop law.^" § 1402. Sale, to whom of several. — Where two or more persons drink together at a bar, one of them paying for the liquor, this is a sale to the person only who calls for the liquor. He merely "treats" the others in the transaction.^^ § 1403. Sale — ^Delivery of part.^If a sale of one gallon of intoxi- cating liquors he made, and the purchaser takes only a part of the gal- lon away at the time of making the purchase, leaving the residue iu' 381; Morgan v. S., 81 Ala. 72, 1 So. 22 Pick. (Mass.) 476; 1 Bish. Cr. 472; Reed v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. L., § 657; Black Intox. Liquors; 1093; Armstrong v. S. (Tex. Cr.), § 381. 47 S. W. 981; S. v. Thompas, 13 W. "P. v. Braisted, 13 Colo. App. Va. 848; S. v. Taylor, 89 N. C. 577; 532, 58 Pac. 796; Walton v. Canon. Johnson v. S., 63 Miss. 228; Skid- City, 14 Colo. App. 352, 59 Pac. 840: more v. Com (Ky.), 57 S. W. 468; "Village of Genoa v. Van Alstine, Vincent v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. W. 108 111. 558. 819 (for minor). ""Cruse v. Aden, 127 111. 238, 20 "Hogg V. P., 15 111. App. 288; N. E. 73; Albrecht v. P., 78 111. 513; Jones V. S., 100 Ga. 579, 28 S. B. S. v. Ball, 27 Neb. 601, 43 N. W. 396; Evans v. S., 101 Ga. 780, 29 398; Reynolds v. S., 73 Ala. 3; S. v. S. E. 40; Graff v. Evans, 8 Q. B. Jones, 39 Vt. 370. D. 373. But see Hunter v. S., 60 " Slegel v. P., 106 111. 97; S. v. Ark. 312, 30 S. W. 42. Peo, 1 Pen. (Del.) 525, 42 Atl. 622. "S. V. CuUins, 53 Kan. 100, 36 Contra, Page v. S., 84 Ala. 446, 4 Pac. 56; Wakeman v. Chambers, 69 So. 697, 7 Am. C. R. 297; Hunter Iowa 169, 28 N. W. 498; Anderson v. S., 101 Ind. 241; S. v. Hubbard* V. S., 32 Pla. 242, 13 So. 435; S. v. 60 Iowa 466, 15 N. "W. 287. Band, 51 N. H. 361; Com. v. Willard, §1404 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 369 the possession of the vendor and not separated from the bulk in the barrel from which the part delivered was taken, this is a sale only of the part so delivered, and is a violation by selling less than one gal- lon."^ But it would not be a violation if the whole gallon so par- chased is separated from the bulk in barrel and only a part of the galr- lon delivered.^^ § 1404. Ownership not material.^On a charge of unlawfully sell- ing intoxicating liquors, the fact that the defendant did not own the liquor and had no authority to sell it, can be no defense.^* § 1405. Lessor of premises not liable. — Under a statute which pun- ishes one who authorizes or permits premises to be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the lessor of the premises is not guilty if he rented the premises for a lawful purpose, not knowing they were ta be used for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, although he- afterwards knew that they were so used, and took no steps to prevent their continued use for that purpose. The lessor would not be crim- inally liable, unless it be shown that after he became aware of the illegal use of the premises by the lessee, he did some act, or made some declaration affirmatively assenting thefreto.^^ § 1406. One general indictment bars others. — A trial and acquittal on one indictment charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors is a bar to a second indictment, returned by the same grand jury, the indictments being alike and general, that is, without alleging any par- ticular person, to whom such liquors were sold.°* The accused was tried and acquitted on a charge of illegal sales of intoxicating liquors,, during the period of time from January 1, 1878, to May 1, 1878. This is a bar to any other charges during the period of time from Jan- uary 1, 1878, to August 20, 1878. The complaint charged the defend- ant with keeeping a tenement used for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors during the period of time mentioned.^' "^Thomas V. S., 37 Miss. 353; Arm- » S. v. Ballingall, 42 Iowa 87, 2 strong V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. Am. C. R. 376; S. v. StafCord, 67 1006; Richardson v. Com., 76 Va. Me. 125. 1007, 4 Am. C. R. 481; S. v. Poteet, '"'Craig v. S., 108 Ga. 776, 33 S.. 86 N. C. 612; P. v. Luders (Mich.), E. 653. 85 N. W. 1081; Mahan v. Com., 21 "Com. v. Robinson, 126 Mass. 259, Ky. L. 1807, 56 S. W. 529. 3 Am. C. R. 144; McWilllams v. S.^ "Dobson V. S., 57 Ind. 69. 110 Ga. 290, 34 S. E. 1016. " Taylor v. S., 121 Ala. 39, 25 So. 701. TTTTnTTira' n t 9A 370 hughes' criminal law. § 1407 § 1407. Same evidence proves two offenses. — The same evidence used on a charge of keeping a nuisance by the unlawful sale of intoxi- -cating liquors may be used on another charge of "keeping such liquors with intent to sell," they being different offenses.^' § 1408. License, good from date. — A license will afEord no protec- tion for sales made before its issue, and dating a license back at the time of its issue will not legalize the sales made before its issue.^' § 1409. License not transferable ; one place only. — A license is- sued to one person to sell intoxicating liquors at a certain place af- fords no protection to another person who has purchased such place and sold intoxicating liquors there.*" Nor will a license author- izing the sale at one place named protect a person in making sales at another place, though but a short distance between the two places.'^ § 1410. License protects one purchasing partner's interest. — Where a firm consisting of two partners have paid the special tax or license, and one of the firm afterwards purchases the interest belong- ing to the other, the one who becomes the sole owner may carry on the business at the same place for the balance of the term on the same license."^ § 1411. License, lawful or unlawful; oral. — The fact that a party has an unexpired license to keep a dram-shop when he takes out a new one can not affect the validity of the new one.*^ An oral permit to druggists by the village authorities, to sell for medicine, is sufiBcient where the ordinance does not contemplate a written permit, the drug- gist complying with the ordinance."* A license issued for a less sum than required by the statute is void, and can be no defense to a prose- "'Com. V. McShane, 110 Mass. 502, 414; Reese v. Atlanta, ,63 Ga. 344; 2 Green C. R. 280; Com. v. McCabe. Bolduc v. Randall, 107 Mass. 121. 163 Mass. 98, 39 N. E. 777; S. v. "Heath v. S., 105 Ind. 342, 4 N. Graham, 73 Iowa 553, 35 N. W. 628; B. 901, 6 Am. C. R. 331; S. v. Lydick, S. V. Wheeler, 62 Vt. 439, 20 Atl. 11 Neb. 366, 9 N. W. 560. 601; Blair v. S., 81 Ga. 629, 7 S. E. "'Com. v. Holland, 20 Ky. L. 581, 855; S. V. Maher, 35 Me. 225; Ar- 47 S. W. 216; Com. v. Asbury, 20 rlngton v. Com., 87 Va. 96, 12 S. Ky. L. 574, 47 S. W. 217. E. 224, 10 Am. C. R. 242. "« U. S. v. Glab, 99 U. S. 225. "S. v. Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 32, 1 Contra, S. v. Zermuehlen, 110 Iowa. Green C. R. 291; Com. v. Welch, 144 1, 81 N. W. 154. Mass. 356, 11 N. E. 423; S. v. «« Swarth v. P., 109 111. 622. Hughes, 24 Mo. 147; Dudley v. S., "Moore v. P., 109 111. 500. 91 Ind. 312; Wilson v. S., 35 Ark. ■§ 1412 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 371 ■CTition under the statute."^ The defendants filed their bond and paid the required amount for a license, strictly complying with the ordi- nance, but the village clerk neglected to issue the license. On an in- dictment, held sufficient defense.'"' § 1412. Strict construction of statute. — The dram-shop act of Illi- nois is a statute of a highly penal character, and should receive a strict construction.''^ Article IV. Power to Eegulate Sales. § 1413. Granting and refusing license. — The city authorities can not arbitrarily refuse, without any excuse, to grant a license to sell intoxicating liquors to an applicant who, in every respect, is a suitable person to be licensed. They may perhaps limit the number of such licenses, but this must be done, if at all, by ordinance."* A license to sell intoxicating liquors may be granted or refused at the discretion of the person or persons authorized to issue licenses, where the statute so provides, and from whose decision there is no appeal."' § 1414. City regulating by license. — Where the charter of a town gives the corporate authorities "complete and exclusive control over the selling of intoxicating liquors," this includes the right to license, as a reasonable and usual mode of controlling the sale of such liq- uors." § 1415. License is not property. — A license to sell intoxicating liquors is neither property nor a contract, within the meaning of the constitutional provisions. It is at all times subject to the police power, and may, for good cause, be revoked.'^ ""Spake V. P., 89 111. 621. <" Toole's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 376; ™Prather v. P., 85 111. 36. See Pierce v. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) 6. Stormes v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1434, 49 See Berg's Petition, 139 Pa. St. 354, S. W. 451. Contra, Houser v. S., 18 21 Atl. 77; Hein v. Smith, 13 W. Va. Ind. 106; Wiles v. S., 33 Ind. 206; 358. See P. v. Town of Thornton, Com. v. Spring, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 186 111. 162, 57 N. B. 841 (who au- 396; S. V. Bach, 36 Minn. 234, 30 thorized to issue license). N. W. 764. " Martin v. P., 88 111. 393. See ■"Cruse V. Aden, 127 111. 239, 20 Copeland v. Town of Sheridan, 152 N. E. 73; Albrecht v. P., 78 111. 511; Ind. 107, 51 N. E. 474. Brantigam v. While, 73 111. 562. " McCoy v. Clark, 104 Iowa 491, ■"Zanone v. Mound City, 103 111. 73 N. W. 1050; Hevren v. Reed, 126 552; Prospect Brewing Co.'s. Peti- Cal. 219, 58 Pac. 536. Contra, Matter tion, 127 Pa. St. 523, 17 Atl. 1090; of Lyman, 160 N. Y. 96, 54 N. E. 577; Sparrow's Petition, 138 Pa. St. 116, Prank v. Forgotston, 61 N. Y. Supp. 20 Atl. 711; Papworth v. Goodnow, 1118. 104 Ga. 653, 30 S. B. 872. 372 hughes' criminal law. § 141^ § 1416. Municipal power limited. — The power given to nmnicipal corporations to grant licenses to retailers of liquors, and to regulate the sale thereof, does not confer power to prohibit, either directly or by a prohibitory charge for a licenseJ^ A statute authorizing a city council to license, regulate and prohibit the selling of intoxicating,, malt, or fermented liquors, does not give the city authority to pass an ordinance prohibiting the sale of such liquors by merchants engaged in the dry goods, clothing, or other like business, such ordinance not being a proper exercise of the police power for the protection of the public from injurious effects arising from the sale of such liquors." 1 1417. Municipal control, near churches, schools. — The legisla- ture has the power to delegate to the municipal authorities the power to regulate, license or prohibit the sale of liquors, not only within the territory included within the limits of the towns, but also within cer- tain distances beyond the outer boundaries thereof .''* The legislature has constitutional power to prohibit the sale of liquors within a rea- sonable distance of schools, churches, colleges and polls of elections.'"^ § 1418. Violating ordinance and statute. — The fact that a city, under its charter, has passed an ordinance regulating or prohibiting the sale, is no bar to a prosecution under the statute.''' The dealer in intoxicating liquors must comply with both the state law and city ordinances.'^ § 1419. Legislative power. — Irrespective of the operation of the federal constitution and restrictions asserted to be inherent in the "Miller v. Jones, 80 Ala. 96; S. 378, 32 S. E. 363; Jacobs Phar. Co. v. v. Pamperin, 42 Minn. 320, 44 N. Atlanta, 89 Fed. 244. W. 251; Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. "Dingman v. P., 51 111. 282; Li- 138, 6 So. 335; Mernaugh v. City of «ense Cases, 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Orlando, 41 Fla. 433, 27 So. 34. See Jones v. P., 14 111. 197; S. v. Frost, S. V. Fay, 44 N. J. L. 474, 4 Am. 103 Tenn. 685, 54 S. W. 986. C. R. 302; Jacobs Phar. Co. v. At- "Fant v. P., 45 111. 263; Kimball lanta, 89 Fed. 244. v. P., 20 111. 350; Gardner v. P., 20 "City of Chicago v. Netcher, 183 111. 434; S. v. Stevens, 114 N. C. 873, 111. 104, 55 N. B. 707, 48 L. R. A. 19 S. E. 861; S. v. Harris, 50 Minn. 261. 128, 52 N. W. 387, 531; Sloan v. S., "P. V. Raims, 20 Colo. 489, 39 8 Blackf . (Ind.) 361; Hill v. Dalton, Pac. 341, 10 Am. C. R. 344; S. v. 72 Ga. 314; Sanders v. S., 34 Neb. Haines, 35 Or. 379, 55 Pac. 39; Chi- 872, 52 N. W. 721. cago Packing Co. v. City of Chicago, " S. v. Sherman, 50 Mo. 265; City 88 111. 221; Brown v. Town of Social of Elk Point v. Vaughn, 1 Dak. 113, Circle, 105 Ga. 834, 32 S. E. 141; Pap- 46 N. W. 577. worth V. City of Fitzgerald, 106 Ga. i 1420 INTOXICATING LIQUOES. 373 nature of American institutions, the general rule is that there are no limitations upon the legislative power of the legislature of a state, •except those imposed by its written constitution.'* § 1420. States, power to regulate. — The fact that congress, under ihe constitution of the United States, has the exclusive right to regu- late commerce among the states, does not deprive the states of the Tight to regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors and prevent the unlawful use of the same." The federal constitution does not restrict the states in the exercise of their police powers.*" § 1421. Power to seize liquors. — Intoxicating liquors, like any ■other articles or property, when kept and intended for unlawful use, fall at once under the ban of the law, and become subject to seizure and confiscation by such methods as are provided by law in conformity with the constitution ; and the methods alid means of their seizure and condemnation are within the police powers delegated to the legislature hy the constitution.*^ § 1422. Statute valid — Police power : ordinance. — A statute re- quiring druggists to report, under oath, sales of intoxicating liquor made by them, to the attorney for the county, is not invalid under any constitutional provision. It is a proper exercise of the police power of the state and in no manner invades the rights of the citizens ■of the state enumerated in the constitution.*^ An ordinance of a city requiring dram-shops or places where intoxicating liquors are sold to be closed during certain stated hours of the night is valid, and is within the authority to "regulate" the sale of such liquors.** '"Giozza V. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 5 How. 577; In re Boyle, 190 Pa. St. €57, 13 S. Ct. 721; S. v. Hodgson, 66 577, 42 Atl. 1025, 45 L. R. A. 399. Vt. 134, 28 Atl. 1089; Plumb v. Chris- *• Poster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, tie, 103 Ga. 686, 30 S. E. 759. As 5 S. Ct. 8, 97. See In re Hoover, 30 to the effect and results flowing Fed. 51; S. v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 from the enactment of a prohibi- Atl. 675; S. v. Allmond, 2 Houst. tory law see the following cases: 612, 1 Green C. R. 301; Bartemeyer Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 S. v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129. Ct. 6; S. V. Barringer, 110 N. C. 527, " S. v. O'Neil, 58 Vt. 140, 2 Atl. 14 S. E. 781; Com. v. Brennan, 103 586, 6 Am. C. R. 325; Cooley Const. 70; Kaufman v. Dostal, 73 Lim. (4th ed.), 714-727. Iowa 691, 36 N. W. 643; Prohib. «^ P. v. Kenwood (Mich., 1900), 82 Amend. Cases, 24 Kan. 700; S. v. N. W. 70. Pairfield, 37 Me. 517. »= Bennett v. Town of Pulaski "S. V. O'Neil, 58 Vt. 140, 2 Atl. (Tenn., 1899), 52 S. W. 913. 586, 6 Am. C. R. 326; License Cases, 374 hughes' criminal law. § 1423 § 1423. Nuisanee, may be enjoined. — ^Under the Iowa statute, teeping a place for the purpose of selling intoxicating liquors is a nuisance, and all persons engaged in keeping such house or place, as well as the owner of the premises, may be enjoined from maintaining such nuisance. Such statute is constitutional.^* § 1424. Statute discriminating — Ordinance. — A statute imposing a tax on persons engaged in the business of selling liquors or of solicit- ing or taking orders for such liquors, to be shipped into the state from places out of the state, not having their principal place of busi- ness in the state, without imposing a like tax on persons engaged ia the same kind of business as to the manufacture of liquors in the state, is unconstitutional and void. It discriminates in favor of persons en- gaged in the business in the state, and interferes with interstate com- merce.^'* An ordinance relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, which unjustly discriminates between persons falling within the same class, is invalid.*® § 1425. State prohibiting importation. — A state can not, in the exercise of its police powers, prohibit the importation from abroad, or from another state, of intoxicating liquors in the so-called original package, being articles of commerce which are to be regulated by con- gress.*^ § 1426. Proceedings for forfeiture — Evidence. — A proceeding, un- der a statute, for the forfeiture of intoxicating liquors, illegally kept and intended for sale, is of a criminal nature, and the allegations of the complaint must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.** § 1427. Ordinance — Statute valid. — An ordinance relating to dram- shops, providing that a "licensee shall not keep nor be in any way in- terested in any saloon or dram-shop at more than one place at the same time," is reasonable and valid.** A statute prohibiting the hand- " Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa 286, " Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 6 Am. C. R. 150, 25 N. W. 131, 27 10 S. Ct. 681; S. v. Coonan, 82 Iowa. N. W. 244. 400, 48 N. W. 921. ''Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. «»Com. v. Intox. Llq., 115 Mass. 446, 6 S. Ct. 454; S. v. Furbush, 72 142, 2 Green C. R. 281. Me. 475; "Welton v. Mo., 91 U. S. «» Swift v. Klein, 163 III. 269, 45- 275; McCreary v. S., 73 Ala. 480. N. E. 219. *■ City of Monmouth v. Popel, 183 111. 634. 56 N. E. 348. § 1428 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 375 ling and hauling of intoxicating liquors in the night time by the owners, or regulating the transportation at any time, under a penalty of forfeiture, is valid, as a proper exercise of the police power.'" § 1428. Minors frequenting saloons. — By statutory provisions in some of the states it is made a criminal oifense to permit minors to remain in saloons, dram-shops or billiard halls, or to play at any game in such places."^ § 1429. Statute constitutional. — The dram shop act of Illinois was- constitutionally enacted, the subject of the bill having been properly expressed in the title, though only in general terms.'^ Article Y. Indictment. § 1430. Statutory words. — An indictment not in the words of the statute will be sustained if it contains words of equivalent meaning: as, charging the sale of "whiskey" instead of the statutory words, "dis- tilled liquors," is sufficient.®' § 1431. Different counts can be joined. — Where a statute enumer- ates different ways of violating the law relating to the sale of intoxi- cating liquors, different counts may be joined in the same indictment, as, for example, one count charging an unlawful sale and another count charging the unlawful soliciting of orders to sell.'* § 1432. Acting as agent. — An indictment which charges that the defendant unlawfully acted as agent and assistant of the seller and purchaser in negotiating a sale of intoxicating liquor does not suffi- ciently state an offense under a statute which forbids any person from acting as agent or assistant of either the buyer or purchaser of such liquors without a license. It charges a violation by inference only.'* "S. v. Holleyman, 55 S. C. 207, »»S. v. Dengolensky, 82 Mo. 45; 31 S. B. 362, 33 S. E. 366; Com. v. S. v. Heckler, 81 Mo. 417; S. v. Intox. Liq., 172 Mass. 311, 52 N. Biddle, 54 N. H. 379; 2 McClain Cr. E. 389. L., § 1273. "Conyers v. S., 50 Ga. 103; Kiley "Williams v. S., 107 Ga. 693, 33 V. S., 120 Ind. 65, 22 N. E. 99. See S. B. 641. P. V. Ewer, 141 N. Y. 129, 36 N. " S. v. Stacks (Miss., 1900), 26 E. 4 (dances). So. 962. =' Johnson v. P., 83 111. 436; Cruse T. Aden, 127 111. 238, 20 N. E. 73. 376 hughes' criminal law. §1433 § 1433, To whom sold — Kinds of liquor sold. — The names of the persons to whom sold need not be alleged, for sales without a license; hut if sales are made to minors or persons in the habit of getting in- toxicated, the names should be stated in the indictment.'" An indict- ment charging the uinlawful sale of intoxicating liquors need not state the kind of liquor sold.'^ § 1434. Sale to principal or agent. — If the purchaser was the agent of an undisclosed principal, the complaint should charge the sale as having been made to him ; but if he was the agent of a disclosed principal, the complaint should charge the sale as having been made to the principal.®* § 1435. Complaint on information. — A complaint made on infor- mation and belief, charging a person with the unlawful sale of intoxi- cating liquor without a license, is sufficient on which to issue a warrant for an arrest.'* § 1436. Indictment in alternative. — An indictment alleging that * the defendant "sold, gave away, or otherwise disposed of" intoxicating liquors, is good, though in the alternative, such mode of pleading being authorized by statute.^"" § 1437. Duplicity — Different liquors. — The indictment is not bad for duplicity in charging that the accused sold wine, brandy, rum, whiskey, and other strong liquors.^ § 1438. Duplicity — ^Different ways. — ^Where the statute makes any of two or more distinct acts connected with the same general offense and subjected to the same measure and kind of punishment, indictable separately and as distinct offenses when each shall have been commit- " Myers v. P., 67 111. 510; City of »=Com. v. Fowler, 145 Mass. 398, Xiincoln Center v. .Linker, 5 Kan. 14 N. B. 457; Com. v. Kimball, 7 App. 242, 47 Pac. 174; Hornberger Mete. (Mass.) 808; S. v. Wentworth, T. S., 47 Neb. 40, 66 N. .W. 23. 35 N. H. 442. "Rice V. P., 38 111. 436; Cannady ""City of Lincoln Center v. Llnk- T. P., 17 111. 159; Newman v. S., 101 er, 6 Kan. App. 369, 51 Pac. 807; Ga. 534, 28 S. E. 1005; Com. v. P. v. Cramer, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1039, Odlin, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 279; S. v. 12 N. Y. Cr. 469; S. v. Tegder, 6 ■Williams, 11 S. Dak. 64, 75 N. W. Kan. App. 762, 50 Pac. 985. 815; S. V. Munger, 15 Vt. 294; P. v. '°»McClellan v. S., 118 Ala. 122, Adams, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 476; Com. 23 So. 732. See S. v. Dison, 104 ■v. Smith, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 553; P. v. Iowa 741, 74 N. W. 692. Polhamus, 40 N. Y. Supp. 491, 8 ^S. v. Cottle, 15 Me. 473; S. v. App. Div. 133. Contra, Drechsel v. Rogers, 39 Mo. 431; P. v. Adams, 17 S., 35 Tex. Cr. 580, 34 S. W. 934. Wend. 475; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1273. § 1439 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 377 ted by different persons and at different times, they may, when com- mitted by the same person and at the same time, be coupled in one count as constituting but one offense.^ An indictment charging that the defendant did "sell, give, lend, and furnish spirituous liquors" is not bad for duplicity.' § 1439. Negativing exception. — Under a statute providing that "no licensee shall sell or furnish to any person intoxicating liquors on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, except that if the licensee is a hotel-keeper, he may supply such liquors to be drunk in their rooms or with their meals, to bona fide guests," an indictment failing to negative the exception in the enacting clause of the statute is defec- tive.* But if the exception is in a subsequent clause of the same sec- tion defining the offense, or in a different section of the statute, then the indictment need not negative such exception.^ § 1440. Defective as to time. — In charging the unlawful sale of in- toxicating liquors, the omission of the words "then and there" in con- nection with "each material fact will render the indictment bad, in not stating when and where the person was in the habit of getting drunk." § 1441. Indictment stating nuisance. — The statute, among other things, provides : "All places used for the illegal sale or keeping of intoxicating liquors" are common nuisances. The indictment alleged that "the defendant did keep and maintain a common nuisance, to wit, a certain building occupied by him as a saloon and shop and resorted to for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors." Held not sufficient to bring the offense within the law.'' ^ S. V. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499, 506; Decarie, 80 Mich. 578, 45 N. W. 491; S. V. Kerr, 3 N. Dak. 523, 58 N. W. S. v. Buskirk, 18 Ind. App. 629, 48 27. N. E. 872. 'Throckmorton v. Com., 20 Ky. "P. v. Crotty, 47 N. Y. Supp. 845, L. 1508, 49 S. W. 474; Pettit v. P., 22 App. Dlv. 77; S. v. Corcoran, 70 24 Colo. 517, 52 Pac. 676. See P v. Minn. 12, 72 N. W. 732. See P. v. Huffman, 48 N. Y. Supp. 482, 12 Taylor, 110 Mich. 491, 68 N. W. 303; N. Y. Cr. 553; Jordan v. S., 37 Tex. S. v. Mullins, 67 Ark. 422, 55 S.. Cr. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 110. "W. 211. *Kiefer v. S., 87 Md. 562, 40 Atl. ° "Wiedemann v. P., 92 HI. 314; 377. See S. v. Russell, 69 Minn. Smith v. S. (Tex. Cr,), 49 S. "W. 499, 72 N. "W. 837; Stovall v. S., 373; 2 McClain Cr. L., | 1262; 37 Tex. Cr. 337, 39 S. W. 934; S. Ziezer v. S., 47 Ind. 129, 1 Am. C. v. Jarvis, 67 Minn. 10, 69 N. W. 474; R. 489. Metzker v. P., 14 111. 101; S. v. ' S. v. Dodge, 78 Me. 439, 6 Atl. Stamey, 71 N. C. 202; S. v. Moore, 875, 6 Am. C. R. 329. 107 Mo. 78, 16 S. W. 937; P. v. 378 hughes' criminal law. § 1442 § 1442. Legal holiday. — An indictment alleged that the defend- ant, on or about the fourth day of July, 1876, unlawfully did then and there sell intoxicating liquors, the said fourth of July being then and there a legal holiday. Held defective; time being of the essence of the offense, it must be directly averred.' § 1443. Contrary to law, essential. — An indictment which fails to allege that the intoxicating liquors were sold or given away "contrary to law" is defective.* § 1444. Indictment containing surplusage. — An indictment charg- ing the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to a person named "and to divers other persons to the grand jury unknown" sufficiently states an offense. The words "and to divers other persons to the grand jury unknown" may be regarded a surplusage.^" § 1445. On election day. — On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor on a day on which an election is held, the indictment must aver the holding of the election on the day in question.^^ § 1446. Alleging election. — An indictment charging a violation of the local option law, alleging that the "qualified voters of said county had, at a legal election, held for that purpose, in accordance with law, determined that the sale of intoxicating liquors should be pro- hibited," sufficiently avers the holding of a legal election, under the local option law, without showing the publication of an order for such election. ^^ Article VI. Evidence; Variance. § 1447. Statutory rule of evidence. — The power of the legislature to change or modify existing rules of evidence, or to establish new ones, is not a matter of doubt. The law providing that the mere deUv- ery of intoxicating liquor shall be sufficient evidence of a sale of such liquor, without any proof of payment, is valid.^' » Ruge V. S., 62 Ind. 388, 3 Am. " Key v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 77, 38 S. C. R. 281. W. 773; Williams v. S., 37 Tex, Cr. "Hubbard v. S., 109 Ala. 1, 19 So. 238, 39 S. W. 664; Hall v. S., 37 Tex. 519; Tarkias v. S., 108 Ala. 17, 19 Cr. 219, 39 S. W. 117. See Gaines So. 24. V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 73, 38 S. W. "S. V. JefEcoat, 54 S. C. 196, 32 774. S. E. 298; Com. v. Manning, 164 "Santo v. S., 2 Iowa 165; Board Mass. 547, 42 N. B. 95. etc., of Auburn v. Merchant, 103 N. "S. V. Weaver, 83 Ind. 543; Y. 143, 8 N. E. 484; S. v. Hurley, Hoskey v. S., 9 Tex. App. 202. 54 Me. 562. See § 3083. § 1448 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 379 § 1448. Several offense from one act. — The evidence used to prove the selling of intoxicating liquors on Sunday may also be used on a charge of selling such liquors without having a license.^* § 1449. Detective evidence. — The testimony of a detective should be received with the greatest caution in a liquor case and the jury should be so instructed. But such evidence is competent.^^ § 1450. License — Burden on defendant. — When a prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts upon the accused to show that he had a license or authority to sell.^" § 1451. Consent of parent. — Where the prosecution shows a sale of intoxicating liquor made to a minor the law requires nothing further on their part. The prosecution is not bound to prove that such sale was made without a written order, etc.^'' § 1452. Proof of "habit." — On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor to a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated, evidence had been introduced by the state showing that the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was sold was in the habit of getting intoxicated and that he resided in the neighborhood of the accused. Evidence of his reputation in that regard was, therefore, competent as a cir- cumstance tending to prove knowledge of that habit on the part of the accused.^' Witnesses may testify as to the habits of a person getting intoxicated, that is, that such person was in the habit of get- ting intoxicated and that they have frequently seen the person in question intoxicated, or the witness may state his impression as to a person being intoxicated.^^ It is not necessary to prove that the person "Arrington v. Com., 87 Va. 96, S. W. 195; S. v. Sorrell, 98 N. C. 12' S. E. 224, 10 L. R. A. 242. 738, 4 S. E. 630; P. v. Curtis, 95 ''1 Ros. Cr. Bv., star p. 132; Com. Mich. 212, 54 N. W. 767; Liggett v. V. Downing, 4 Gray (Mass.) 29; P. P., 26 Colo. 364, 58 Pac. 144. V. Barrick, 49 Cal. 242; S. v. Mc- "Fairly v. S., 63 Miss. 333; Mon- Kean, 36 Iowa 343; P. v. Curtis, 95 roe v. P., 113 111. 672; Bowman v. Mich. 212, 54 N. "W. 767. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 14, 40 S. W. 796, 41 "Birr v. P., 113 111. 647; S. v. S. W. 635. Oonfm, Berning v. S., 51 Keggon, 55 N. H. 19, 3 Am. C. R. Ark. 550, 11 S. W. 882. 286; S. v. Perkins, 53 N. H. 435; "Adams v. S., 25 Ohio St. 584, 2 Com. V. Thurlow, 24 Pick. (Mass.) Am. C. R. 394. 374; S. V. Shelton, 16 Wash. 590, '"Gallagher v. P., 120 111. 182, 11 48 Pac. 258, 49 Pac. 1064; 1 Greenl. N. E. 335; S. v. Pratt, 34 Vt. 323; Bv., § 79; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1278; Stanley v. S., 26 Ala. 26; White v. Orme v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1412, 55 S., 103 Ala. 72, 16 So. 63. 380 hughes' criminal law. §14^ alleged to be a person in the habit of getting intoxicated had a fixed habit.^" § 1453. Proof of drunkenness. — On the trial for selling intoxicat- ing liquors to "one who is intoxicated," it is not necessary to prove the person was drunk at the very moment of the sale of whiskey.'^ § 1454. Proving intoxicating qualities. — The intoxicating qualities of elixir or bitters may be proven by the experimental effect of its use. Or the same fact can be proved by any witness who is shown to have had an opportunity of personal observation, or of experience, such as to enable him to form a correct opinion. He need not be a technical expert to give his opinion.^'' § 1455. Evidence of expert as to "bitters." — A witness for the prosecution testified upon cross-examination that he knew the article known as "Sweet Bitters"; that it was a well-known article of medicine kept for sale by druggists and others ; that he had known of these bitters for many years; that he was once employed by Dr. Sweet, the proprietor, in putting them up for sale. The defendant then asked him this question: "What proportion of intoxicatitig liquor did these bitters contain ?" Held error to refuse an answer to the question.^' § 1456. Owner of premises. — It must be shown that the defendant was the owner or proprietor of the place where the intoxicating liquors were sold by another person before he can be held for the acts of another.^* § 1457. Keeping place — ^Persons intoxicated. — On a charge of keeping a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors it is competent to show that persons going in and out of the place were intoxicated at or about the time of the alleged violation.^" '" Murphy v. P., 90 111. 60. v. S., 64 Ark. 662, 43 S. W. 499; ^ Kammann v. P., 124 111. 482, 16 Gernstenkorn v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 621, N. B. 661; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1262. 44 S. W. 503. See Jordan v. S., 37 ^ Carl V. S., 87 Ala. 17, 6 So. 118, Tex. Cr. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 8 Am. C. R. 404. 110. "'Com. V. Pease, 110 Mass. 412, 2 "=P. v. Berry, 107 Mich. 256, 65 Green C. R. 278. N. W. 98; Com. v. Vincent, 165 Mass. « Fisher v. P., 103 111. 101; Henry 18, 42 N. B. 332. § 1458 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 381 § 1458. Drinking on premises. — On a charge of selling intoxicating liquors without a license it is proper to show that persons drank liquor in the defendant's place of business, which he had ordered for them and which he kept in his place of business for their convenience.'"' § 1459. Carrying on business — Single act. — The doing of a single act pertaining to a particular business will not be considered engaging in, or carrying on the business, yet a series of such acts would be so considered, such as a series of sales of liquor."^ § 1460. Evidence — ^As to nuisance. — Where a person has a license to sell intoxicating liquors, one unlawful sale to a minor is not suf- ficient to sustain a conviction for keeping a nuisance.^* Evidence that the defendant had control of the place where it is charged that intoxicating liquors were sold; that bottles containing whiskey were found in his possession ; that the place contained a bar, and drinking and whiskey glasses were kept there, was suflBcient to warrant a con- viction for keeping a nuisance.^® § 1461. Other sales by wife. — Testimony relating to other sales of liquor by the wife in the presence of her husband is admissible, not for the purpose of convicting him of such other sales, but to "illustrate the character of the sale" charged in the indictment.'* § 1462. Other violations competent. — On a charge of keeping and maintaining a tenement from July 30, 1873, to January 30, 1874, for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, it is competent to show that during that same period ef time the defendant pleaded guilty in the municipal court to a charge of keeping the same tenement open for business on Sunday.'^ ^Hartgraves v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 43 S., 49 N. J. L. 61, 7 Atl. 340; S. v. S. W. 331. Hoxsie, 15 R. I. 1, 22 Atl. 1059. "Abel V. S., 90 Ala. 631, 8 So. ""Hensly v. S., 52 Ala. 10, 1 Am. 760. See Merritt V. S., 19 Tex. App. C. R. 465; Com. v. Sinclair, 138 435. Mass. 493, 5 Am. C. R. 330; Bennett ^Com. V. Patterson, 138 Mass. v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 445, 50 S. W. 946; 498; Miller v. S., 3 Ohio St. 475; S. Pike v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 613, 51 S. W. V. Fay, 44 N. J. L. 474; S. v. Hoxsie, 395. Contra, Chlpman v. P., 24 15 R. 1. 1, 22 Atl. 1059; S. v. Reyelts, Colo. 520, 52 Pac. 677; Hans v. S., 74 Iowa 499, 38 N. W. 377. 50 Neb. 150, 69 N. W. 838. " S. V. Wambold, 74 Iowa 605, 38 ^ Com. v. Ayers, 115 Mass. 137, N. "W. 429; Com. v. Sullivan, 156 2 Green C. R. 280. Mass. 229, 30 N. E. 1023; Brown v. 382 nUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. § 1463 § 1463. Sales to other minors. — On a charge of selling intoxicating liquors to a minor, where the sale is alleged to have been made by the defendant's clerk, evidence of other sales to other minors at other times by the defendant himself is incompetent.'^ § 1464, United States license. — If the defendant had a government license to sell liqnors it is material and competent on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and the defendant on cross-examination may be required to answer whether he had such license, or the prosecution may prove the fact without producing such government license. It is competent to prove such license by a certi- fied copy made from entries in books kept in the revenue office.'' § 1465. Showing contents of kegs by revenue stamps. — The fact that United States revenue stamps were seen on beer kegs in the warehouse of the defendant at the time of the offense charged may be shown as tending to prove the contents of the kegs to be malt liquor.'* § 1466. Eebuttal evidence. — ^Where the defendant sold liquor as cider at fifty cents a pint it is competent to show that other dealers sold cider at fifty cents a gallon.'^ § 1467. To whom sold is descriptive. — Where the information or complaint alleges the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to certain persons named therein, though unnecessarily, the prosecution will not be permitted to show sales to other persons. Stating in the in- dictment the names of the persons to whom the liquors were sold, is descriptive of the ofEense and can not be rejected as surplusage." § 1468. Sales, when made. — ^A witness testified that he had pur- chased liquors from the defendant within the statute of limitations, and the defendant offered to prove in defense that the witness had not " S. V. Austin, 74 Minn. 463, 77 v. S., 72 Miss. 994, 18 So. 432; Com. N. W. 301. V. Uhrig, 146 Mass. 132, 15 N. B. ''Throckmorton v. Com., 20 Ky. 156; S. v. Wiggin, 72 Me. 425; Guy L. 1508, 49 S. W. 474; Clark v. S., v. S., 90 Md. 29, 44 Atl. 997. 40 Tex. Cr. 127, 49 S. W. 85. See S. " S. v. Wright, 68 N. H. 351, 44 V. Howard, 91 Me. 396, 40 Atl. 65; Atl. 519. Gernstenkorn v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 621, =» Sparks t. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. 44 S. W. 503; Treue v. S. (Tex. Cr.), W. 493. 44 S. W. 829; S. v. White, 70 Vt. ™ Hudson v. S., 73 Miss. 784, 19 225, 39 Atl. 1085; Pitner v. S., 37 So. 965. Tex. Cr. 268, 39 S. W. 662; Burnett § 1469 INTOXICATINa LIQUORS. 383 heen in his place of business since a certain date, being the time of a difficulty between him and the witness, a date more than eighteen months since the indictment was returned: Held error to refuse the offered evidence.'^ § 1469. Variance — ^Keeping for sale. — Where the charge in a complaint is "exposing and keeping intoxicating liquors for sale'* illegally, a conviction will be sustained, if the proof shows only a "keeping for sale," though there be no proof of exposing for sale.^* § 1470. Variance — "Selling" or "giving." — A count for "selling" liquor can not be supported by proof of "giving."** § 1471. Variance as to place. — An information charged the de- fendant in the words of the statute with "keeping open a certain house, saloon and building" in which it was reputed spirituous or intoxicating liquors were exposed for sale. The proof showed that such liquors had been dispensed to individuals on a platform in a park of about four acres of ground; that the platform was used for dancing, but it had no covering at the top or sides except that there was a railing around the sides to prevent the dancers from slipping off. Held that this platform was not a building as contemplated by the statute.*" An indictment alleging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors "in the city of Bridgeton, in the county of Cumberland," is not supported by proof of sales outside the limits of the city named.*^ § 1472. Variance as to persons. — An indictment charging the de- fendant with making an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to two persons jointly is not sustained by proof of sales to each of the two persons separately at different times.*^ " Fisher v. P., 103 111. 104. " S. v. Barr, 39 Conn. 40, 1 Green "'Com. V. Tay, 146 Mass. 146, 15 C. R. 200. N. B. 503; Paulk v. City of Syca- "Buck v. S., 61 N. J. L. 525, 39 more, 104 Ga. 728, 31 S. E. 200. Atl. 919; Bryant v. S., 62 Ark. 459, "•Siegel V. P., 106 111. 94; Birr v. 36 S. W. 188; S. v. Ham, 64 N. J. L. P., 113 111. 649; Humpeler v. P., 49, 44 Atl. 845. 92 111. 400; Goddard v. Bumham, *^P. v. Huffman, 48 N. Y. Supp. 124 Mass. 578; Wood v. Ter., 1 Or. 482, 24 App. Div. 233; Sparks v. S. 223; William v. S., 91 Ala. 14, 8 (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 493; Poe v. S. So. 668; Thompson v. S., 37 Ark. (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 493. 408. 384 HUGHES* CRIMINA-L LAW. § I473! § 1473. Date of sales. — An information contained one count charging the defendant with making a sale of intoxicating liquor on December 9, 1873. Held that the prosecution shall not be restricted to the particular day named. Evidence of sales made on any day "within the statute of limitations is competent.*' When the oSense is alleged to have been committed on some one particular day it is well settled that testimony may be given to prove the offense on that or any other day within the statute of limitations before the finding of the indictment, but not to prove the commission of the offense on more than one day when there is but one offense charged.** If in such case the prosecutor begins by introducing testimony which directly tends to prove the charge on some particular day he will be held to have elected that day as the day on which he is t© prove the offense, though he may prefer a different day.*^ § 1474. Date of sales — ^Limitation. — On a charge of maintaining a nuisance by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors the prosecu- tion may show illegal sales on any day within the statute of limita- tions.*° Asking a conviction for an unlawful sale at any time within, eighteen months (the statute of limitations) is error when the statute alleged to be violated was not in force during a part of that time.*^ § 1475. Variance as to name. — The accused was indicted for sell- ing intoxicating liquor unlawfully to J. T. Middlebrook, who appeared as a witness before the grand jury. He was not called as a witness on the trial, but A. T. Middlebrook was called instead. The district attorney, by leave of the court, amended the indictment. The amend- ment was improper: it was the sale to J. T. Middlebrook that the grand jury intended to present. The amendment iSade a different charge of a different sale to a different person.** § 1476. What offense liable on. — On an information containing several distinct counts of selling intoxicating liquor contrary to the "S. V. Munson, 40 Conn. 475, 2 C. R. 335; P. v. Jenaess, 5 Mich. Green C. R. 494; S. v. Camahan, 63 327; S. v. Bates, 10 Conn. 372. Mo. App. 244; Koch v. S., 32 Ohio " S. v. Arnold, 98 Iowa 253, 67 St. 353; Com. v. Carroll, 15 Gray N. W. 252; P. v. Caldwell, 107 Mich. (Mass.) 409; Fitzpatrick v. S., 37 374, 65 N. W. 213. Ark. 373. « Bennett v. P., 16 111. 160. " S. V. Nagle, 14 R. I. 331, 5 Am. " Blumenberg v. S., 55 Miss. 52g, C. R. 335; Com. v. Kelly, 10 Gush. 3 Am. C. R. 284; Richardson v. S., (Mass.) 69; "Wharton Cr. Ev., § 103. 63 Ind. 192, 3 Am. C. R. 303; Fields « S. V. Nagle, 14 R. I. 331, 5 Am. v. Ter., 1 "Wyo. 78, 3 Am. C. R. 320. § 1477 INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 385 law, the defendant can not be found guilty of any offense except some offense the complaining witness had in mind at the time of verifying the information.*' Article VII. Jurisdiction ; Venue. § 1477. Sale is place of delivery. — Intoxicating liquors sent C. 0. D. from one county or state to another for delivery are regarded as sold in the place where delivered; it would be otherwise if the goods were not sent C. 0. D.^" A license held by a liquor dealer author- izing him to sell in a certain county named, gives him no right to peddle his beer through other counties. The defendant as agent of the liquor dealer sold intoxicating liquors in another county, de- livered the liquor and collected the money : Held to be a sale in the county where delivered.^^ § 1478. Selecting jury — Competency. — If a person is so prejudiced against one selling intoxicating liquors, or against any misdemeanor or crime, that he could not give the accused a fair and impartial trial, he would be an incompetent juror. ^^ Are you a member of any tem- perance society? or any league to prosecute for liquor violations? or contribute to the same ? are proper questions to determine whether or not it be desirable to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror.'' § 1479. Suit for penalty. — ^When an action of debt is provided for by statute as the mode to recover the penalty before a justice of the peace, no complaint under oath is required to give jurisdiction."* § 1480. Dram-shop — ^Bond. — A druggist having a permit to sell in- toxicating liquors for medicine is not required to give bond to keep a dram-shop, as is required by dram-shop keepers.''^ "S. V. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 7 26 Fed. 515; Com. v. Shurn, 145 Pac. 591, 6 Am. C. R. 306. Mass. 150, 13 N. E. 395; Pearson v. "S. V. O'Neil, 58 Vt. 140, 2 Atl. S., 66 Miss. 510, 6 So. 243; Shuster 586, 6 Am. C. R. 322; Mason v. v. S., 62 N. J. L. 521, 41 Atl. 701; Thompson, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 305; P. v. De Groot, 111 Mich. 245, 69 Village of Coffeen v. Huber, 78 111. N. W. 248; S. v. Shuster, 63 N. J. L. App. 455; Crabb v. S., 88 Ga. 384, 15 355, 46 Atl. 1101. See Teal v. Com. S. B. 455; S. v. Goss, 59 Vt. 266, 9 (Ky.), 57 S. W. 464. Atl. 829. Contra, James v. Com., 19 " Carrow v. P., 113 111. 551. Ky. L. 1045, 42 S. W. 1107. °»Lavin v. P., 69 111. 305; P. v. "Com. V. Holstine, 132 Pa. St. Reyes, 5 Cal. 347; Com. v. Eagan, 357, 19 Atl. 273; S. v. Colby, 92 Iowa 4 Gray (Mass.) 18. 463, 61 N. W. 187; Dunn v. S., 83 "Ferguson v. P., 73 111. 559. Ga. 27, 8 S. E. 806; U. S. v. Cline, "> Moore v. P., 109 111. 503. hughes' c. l. — 25 CHAPTEE XXXIII. BAREATKT, MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPEETT. Aet. I. Definition; Elements; Matters of Defense, §§ 1481-1485 II. Indictment, §§ 148^1487 Aeticle I. Definition; Elements; Mattees op Defense. § 1481. Barratry defined. — Common barratry is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels between his majesty's subjects (the people), either at law or otherwise.^ § 1482. Not barratry. — If one of two heirs who are having a dis- pute about the appointment of an administrator of an estate enters into an agreement to pay a third person one-half of what he can save out of the interest of the other heir, such an arrangement is not a champertous contract.^ § 1483. Maintenance defined. — Maintenance is an offense that bears a near relation to the former (barratry), being an officious iater- toeddling in a suit that no way belongs to one, by maintaining or assisting either party with money or otherwise to prosecute or defend it. This is an offense against public justice, as it keeps alive strife and contention and perverts the remedial process of the law into an engine of oppression.^ § 1484. Champerty defined. — Champerty is a species of mainte- nance and punishable in the same manner, being a bargain with a '4 Bl. Com. 134; 3 Greenl. Et., 'Joy v. Metcalf, 161 Mass. 514, 37 S 66; Com. v. McCuUoch, 15 Mass. N. E. 671. 227. »4 Bl. Com. 134; 3 Greenl. Bv. (Redf. ed.), § 180. (386) § 1485 BARRATKY, MAINTENANCE ANB CHAMPERTY. 387 3)laintifE or defendant (campum partire) to divide the land or other matter sued for between them, if they prevail at law, whereupon the champerter is to carry on the party's suit at his own expense.* § 1485. Not champerty. — Persons who furnish materials and. la- bor for the construction of gravel roads may lawfully sell or assign their claims and not be guilty of champerty.^ Article II. Indictment. § 1486. Indictment for barratry. — The indictment for barratry charges the accused, in general terms, with being a common barrator, without specifying any particular facts or instances; but the court will not suffer the trial to proceed unless the prosecutor has season- ably, if requested, given the accused a note of the particular acts of barratry intended to be proved against him.® § 1487. Indictment for maintenance. — The indictment for main- tenance charges, in substance, that the defendant unjustly and unlaw- fully maintained and upheld a certain suit pending in such a court (describing it) to the manifest hindrance and disturbance of jus- tice.'' * 4 Bl. Com. 135. Davis, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 432: Bish. » Hart v. S., 120 Ind. 83, 21 N. B. New Cr. Proc, § 100. 654, 24 N. E. 151. '3 Greenl. Bv. (Redf. ed.), § 181; "3 Greenl. Bv. (Redf. ed.), § 66; Bish. New Cr. Proc, § 154. Rex V. Wylie, 1 New R. 95; Com. v. PART FOUR OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE CHAPTER XXXIV. BEIBEET. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1488-1500 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1501-1508 III. Indictment, §§ 1509-1525 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1526-1533 Article I. Demnition and Elements. § 1488. Bribery defined. — ^Bribery is when a judge or other person concerned in the administration of Justice takes any undue reward to influence his behavior in his office. "^ Any article or thing taken by extortion must be something of value, otherwise there is no offense.^ § 1489. Soliciting a bribe is violation. — ^By statute of California it is made bribery for any person to give or offer a bribe to any member of a political convention, and also for every member of such body who ^4 BI. Com. 139; 3 Greenl. Ev. generally recognized In the United (Redf. ed.), § 71; Walsh v. P., 65 States: TJnderhill Cr. Bv., § 455, 111. 59; S. V. Miles, 89 Me. 142, 36 citing Russell on Crimes 154; S. v. Atl. 70; Dishon v. Smith, 10 Iowa Jackson, 73 Me. 91; Com. v. Hoxey, 212; Curran v. Taylor, 92 Ky. 537, 16 Mass. 375; Com. v. McHale, 97 18 S. W. 232; Underbill Cr. Bv., Pa. St. 397. See "Election Law § 451; P. V. Ah Pook, 62 Cal. 493. Violations." Bribery and attempts to influence ' Com. v. Cony, 2 Mass. 523; Un- voters at elections were indictable derhill Cr. Ev., § 457. at common law, and this rule is (388) § 1490 BRIBERY. 389 receives or offers to receive a bribe. Under this statute a person who solicits a bribe is guilty, though no bribe was offered.* § 1490. Offense, when complete. — The offense is complete by the offer of the bribe, so far as the offer is concerned. If the offer is accepted both parties are guilty.* § 1491. Person bribed violating promise. — And though the person bribed does not perform his promise, but directly violates it, as, for ex- .ample, if, in the case of an election, he votes for the opposing candi- date or interest, the offense of the corrupter is still complete.^ One who delivers money to a magistrate, intending thereby to influence iis decision in a matter pending before him, is guilty of giving a gift corruptly, although the magistrate receives the money in ignorance of what it is.° § 1492. Offense complete, though contract void. — On a charge of bribe'ry against a public officer for receiving money to influence his official conduct in contracting for property for the public, it is not material whether the contract could be enforced or not. If the con- tract was executed and the public money paid under the influence of a bribe, the offense is complete.'' § 1493. Giving bond, for money. — The giving of a bond condi- tioned for the payment of money to procure the efforts of one of the members of a committee of the city council, who was an alderman, to serve the interest of the person giving such bond, in the decision of the matter then before them for determination, is bribery.* § 1494. Bribing legislator. — The payment of money to a legislator for the purpose of influencing his vote for the election of a United ■States senator is bribery at common law.® 'P. V. Hurley, 126 Cal. 351, 58 =3 Greenl. Bv., § 72; P. v. Mark- Pac. 814. ham, 64 Cal. 157, 30 Pac. 620. See * 3 Greenl. Bv., § 71; Walsh v. P., S. v. Dudoussat, 47 La. 977, 17 So. 65 111. 60; S. V. Ellis, 33 N. J. L. 685; Messer v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 635, 102, 97 Am. R. 707; Jackson v. S., 40 S. W. 488; Ruffin v. S., 36 Tex. 43 Tex. 421. See S. v. Gayer, 3 Ohio Cr. 565, 38 S. W. 169; Newman v. L. N. 431; P. V. Ah Fook, 62 Cal. P., 23 Colo. 300, 47 Pac. 278. 493; 2 Bish. New Cr. L. (8th ed.), •Com. v. Murray, 135 Mass. 530. § 88; Underhlll Cr. Bv., § 451; Ruf- 'Glover v. S., 109 Ind. 391, 7 Am. -fin V. S. (Tex.), 38 S. W. 999; Com. C. R. 116, 10 N. B. 282. V. Dietrich, 7 Pa. Sup. Ct. 515, 42 » Cook v. Shipman, 24 111. 616. 'W. N. C. 459; S. v. Durnam, 73 ' S. v. Davis, 2 Pen. (Del.) 139, 45 Minn. 150, 75 N. W. 1127. Atl. 394. 390 hughes' criminal law. §1495 § 1495. Persons included under statutes. — A statute relating to the receiving of a bribe by "any executive officer, in a matter which may be brought before him in his official capacity," will include a police officer for accepting money as a consideration not to make arrests.^* Bribery as defined by the federal statute is comprehensive enough to include persons who are not public officers, such as a detective in the secret service of the government.^^ But the federal statute will not be construed to reach an interpreter of a language at the hearing of a criminal charge before a United States commissioner.^^ A county solicitor is a "ministerial officer," within the meaning of the bribery statute.^^ § 1496. What included in "decision ;" "executive officer." — A cer- tificate which, under a statute, a board of examining surgeons is required to make out, is a "decision or action on a question, matter, or cause, or proceeding," within the meaning of the statute relating to bribery.^* A member of the state board of education is an "executive officer," within the meaning of a statute relating to bribery.^^ § 1497. Bribing jurors. — An attempt to bribe a juror, "with intent to influence him to violate his duty," applies to all jurors selected and summoned to act as jurors, and not merely to jurors actually trying particular cases.^* § 1498. Bribing juror — ^Mere offer. — Under a statute which pro-^ vides that "any juror who asks, receives, or agrees to receive any bribe,, upon any agreement or understanding that his vote shall be influenced thereby," shall be punished, will be included the mere offering to be bribed. ^^ § 1499. Negligence of officers. — "The negligence of public officers intrusted with the administration of justice, as sheriffs, coroners, "P. v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 30 '«S. v. Womack, 4 Wash. 19, 29 Pac. 620. See S. v. Pearce, 14 Pla. Pac. 939. 153; P. V. TurnbuU, 93 Cal. 630, 29 ^'S. v. McCrystol, 43 La. 907, 9 Pac. 224. So. 922; S. v. Glaudi, 43 La. 914, 9 "U. S. V. Ingham, 97 Fed. 935. So. 925; White v. S., 103 Ala. 72, >= In re Yee Gee, 83 Fed. 145. 16 So. 63; S. v. Williams, 136 Mo. "Diggs V. S., 49 Ala. 311. 293, 38 S. W. 75. See § 1635. "U. S. V. Kessel, 62 Fed. 57; U. "P. v. Squires, 99 Cal. 327, 33 S. V. Van Leuven, 62 Fed. 62. See Pac. 1092; P. v. Northey, 77 CaU In re Bozeman, 42 Kan. 451, 22 Pac. 618, 19 Pac. 865, 20 Pac. 129. 628. § J500 BRIBERY. 391 cons;tables, and the like, makes the offender liable to be fined." This offense is a species of bribery.^* § 1500. OfScer de facto sufScient. — ^An officer de facto, as well as an officer de jure, holding an office of trust, is within the terms of the statute defining bribery. That he was only an officer de facto is no defense to a charge of bribery.^* Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1501. Illegal arrest, no defense. — An officer making an illegal arrest and then accepting a bribe from the accused as a consideration for allowing him to escape, is guilty of bribery, although the arrest was illegal.^" § 1502. Bribing voters. — "If any money, gift, office, employment, or reward be given or promised to be given to any voter, at any time, in order to influence him to give or withhold his vote, as well he that takes as he that offers such bribe forfeits £500, and is forever disabled from voting and holding any office in any corporation."^^ § 1503. Statute unconstitutional. — A person holding an office cre- ated by an unconstitutional statute is not an officer within the mean- ing of the law relating to extortion and can not therefore be guilty of extortion.^^ § 1504. Belief no defense. — That the accused, who gave a bribe to influence a public officer, believed that the bribe (promissory notes) was worthless, is no defense to a charge of bribery.^^ 'M Bl. Com. 140. See 2 McClaln ''■1 Bl. Com. 179; 2 Bish. Cr. L. Cr. L., § 909. (8th ed.), § 86; Berry v. Hill, 6 N. "S. v. Duncan, 153 Ind. 318, 54 M. 643, 30 Pac. 936. See Underbill N. B. 1066; Florez v. S., 11 Tex. Cr. Ev., § 455. App. 102; S. V. Gardner, 54 Ohio ^Kirby v. S., 57 N. J. L. 320, 31 St. 24, 42 N. E. 999; S. v. Gramels- Atl. 213. But see S. v. Gardner, 54 pacher, 126 Ind. 398, 26 N. B. 81; Ohio St. 24, 42 N. E. 999. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 452. ^' Com. v. Donovan, 170 » Moseley v. S., 25 Tex. App. 515, 228, 49 N. E. 104. 8 S. W. 652. 392 hughes' criminal law. § 1506 § 1506. Prosecuting witness giving bribe. — ^It is no defense to an indictment charging bribery that the bribe was given by the prosecut- ing witness.^^ The fact that the public oflQeer suggested bribery and expressed his willingness to be bribed by the accused is no defense to the charge.^* § 1507. Promissory note as bribe, void. — The indictment alleges in substance that the prosecuting attorney received a promissory note for the payment of twenty-five dollars, as a consideration to influence his behavior in oflBce as such prosecuting attorney in the prosecution of a certain felony mentioned in the indictment: Held not to be bribery ; that it must allege the officer actually received something of value. The promissory note was held to be void and of no value.''' § 1508. Bribing councilman. — Offering money to a councilman to induce him to vote for a certain person to fill an office which does not exist does not constitute bribery.^* Article III. Indictment. § 1509. Statutory words sufficient. — Charging the offense of brib- ery substantially in the language of the statute defining it sufficiently states the offense in the indictment or information.^' An indictment alleging that the defendant "did receive and consent to receive" the offered bribe is sufficient under the statutory words "receive or consent to receive" any remuneration.^" § 1510. Means used essential. — An information charging bribery in attempting to influence a juror in a matter pending in court is "° Newman v. P., 23 Colo. 300, 47 ''Com. v. Reese, 16 Ky. L. 493, Pac. 278; P. v. Liphardt, 105 Mich. 29 S. W. 352. 80, 62 N. W. 1022; S. v. Dudoussat, " P. v. Bdson, 68 Cal. 549, 10 Pac. 47 La. 977, 17 So. 685. 192; S. v. McDonald, 106 Ind. 233, ^Rath V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 142, 33 6 N. B. 607; S. v. Glaudi, 43 La. 914, S. W. 229. 9 So. 925; S. v. McCrystol, 43 La. "S. V. Walls, 54 Ind. 561, 2 Am. 907, 9 So. 922. 0. R. 23; P. V. Willis, 54 N. Y. Supp. » S. v. Wynne, 118 N. C. 1206, 24 52, 24 Misc. 549. But see Watson S. E. 216. V. S., 39 Ohio St. 123, 4 Am. 0. R. i71, 76. ^ 1510 BKIBERY. 393 defective in failing to set out the means used to influence the juror. The statutory words are, "To corrupt a juror by offering a gift," etc.^"^ § 1511. Bribing juror. — An indictment charging a juror with brib- ery is not required to allege that the juror received the bribe from a party to the cause in which it was given to influence him or from any one representing such party.^^ § 1512. Offering to bribe. — The indictment sufiSciently states the offense of offering to bribe an officer by alleging an offer to bribe him to vote a certain way on a matter upon which by law he was required to vote. It is not necessary to aver that the bribe was to induce the officer to do or not to do an act in violation of his duty.^* § 1513. Eeceiving a bribe. — The information alleged that the de- fendant received a bribe upon the understanding that he would not arrest persons engaged at gaming: Held sufficient, although it did not aver in the language of the statute that any such offense had been brought before him in his official capacity.®* § 1514. "At his instance" immaterial. — ^TJnder a statute defining bribery to be any reward to the person influenced or intended to be influenced or to another "at his instance," an indictment alleging that the bribe was offered 'w.'th intent to influence the voter and did control the voter in his vote as councilman in a certain election is sufficient, without alleging that the bribe was offered at his instance.'^ § 1515. Allegation as to being eligible. — ^An indictment for brib- ing a mayor to appoint a certain person to an office which he was authorized to fill by appointment need not allege that the defendant was eligible to fill such office.'* § 1516. Allegation desmbing document. — ^An indictment charging a state senator with accepting a bribe to vote for a certain joint reso- . *■ Armstrong v. Van De Vanter, 21 " P. v. Markham, 64 Gal. 157, 30 "Wash. 682, 59 Pac. 510. Pae. 620, 49 Am. R. 700. ''Com. V. Milliken, 174 Mass. 79, »Com. v. Root, 96 Ky. 533, 29 S. 54 N. E. 357. W. 351. "Rath V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 142, 33 "S. v. Graham, 96 Mo. 120, 8 S. S. W. 229. W. 911. 394 hughes' criminal law. ' § 1517 lution is sufficient by designating the resolution by its title only, with- out further description of the resolution.*^ § 1517. Kelating to witness. — An indictment for attempting to bribe a witness is sufficient if it alleges that the attempt was made to induce the witness to absent himself so as to prevent his giving testimony in a cause before a justice of the peace of which the justice had jurisdiction. It is not necessary to allege that the witness had been subpenaed nor that his testimony was material nor that he had been sworn as a witness.** § 1518. Indictment — At common law. — An indictment which charges that the defendant, an alderman, made a proposal to receive a bribe to influence his action in the discharge of his duty sufficiently states a common law offense.** § 1519. Description of bribe immaterial. — An indictment charging a public officer with accepting a bribe to influence him to enter into a contract for the purchase of property for the use of the public need not describe the property or state the kind, the purchase of the prop- erty not being the gravamen of the offense.*" § 1520. Venue material. — An indictment charging a town assessor with the offense of offering to receive a bribe to influence his official action by reducing the assessment on a certain lot is defective if it fails to allege that the lot was situated in the town for which the der fendant is assessor.*^ § 1521. Indictment defective.-T-An indictment charging the de- fendant with unlawfully receiving a fee for services rendered "under color of his office" is not sufficient under a statute which forbids, under a penalty, any revenue officer to demand or receive any fee except as prescribed by law.*" § 1522. Director of corporation. — An indictment alleging that the defendant offered a bribe to a member of the board of directors of " S. V. Smalls, 11 S. C. 262. " Glover t. S., 109 Ind. 391, 10 "S. V. Blebusch, , 32 Mo; 276; N. E. 282, 7 Am. C. R. 114. Chrisman v. S., 18, Neb. 107. 24 N. "Gunning v. P., 189 111. 165, 59 W. 434. N. B. 494. "Walsh V. P., 65 111. 58. "U. S. v. Williams, 76 Fed. 223. § 1523 BRIBERY. 395 a corpor-ation is defective in failing to allege that such corporation is a public corporation, as the statute applies and has reference only to public and gMosi-publie corporations.*^ § 1523. Kn&wledge material. — An indictment charging an offer to bribe a juror, though in the language of the statute, is defective in not alleging that the defendant knew that the person to whom he ofEered the bribe was a juror.** § 1524. Duplicity — Two ofaces. — Charging in the indictment that the defendant offered money to a person named, a member of the house of representatives and also a member of a committee of such house, to induce him to vote for a certain bill and for a favorable report in the committee, is not bad for duplicity.*® § 1525. Quantity of value. — ^It is not necessary to allege or prove the quantity of value where that is not an essential element of the pffense. To allege in the indictment "a large amount of money of great value" was ofEered as a bribe is sufficient, under a statute which provides that "whoever corruptly offers any money" or thing of value phall be guilty of bribery. The words, "anything of value," include money.*" An allegation in the indictment that the defendant did' give a bribe, without a statement of the value or what the bribe was, is sufficient.*^ Aeticle IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1526. Testimony of accomplice. — The testimony of an accomplice voluntarily given is competent evidence against the other, when the parties to the offense are tried separately.** § 1527. Indictment, competent evidence. — On the trial of a ease in which the defendant is charged with attempting to bribe a witness, "P. v. Turnbull, 93 Cal. 630, 29 McDonald, 106 Ind. 233, 6 N. E. Pac. 224. 607; Carutters v. S., 74 Ala. 406. "S. V. Howard, 66 Minn. 309, 68 "P. v. Ward, 110 Cal. 369, 42 N. W. 1096. Pac. 894. See Leeper v. S., 29 Tex. "Watson V. S., 39 Ohio St. 123, App. 154, 15 S. W. 411; S. v. Bie- 4 Am. C. R. 73. busch, 32 Mo. 276. "Watson v. S., 39 Ohio St. 123, « Benson v. U. S., 146 U. S. 325, 4 Am. C. R. 71; Leeper v. S., 29 13 S. Ct. 60. See Com. v. Bell, 145 Tex. App. 154, 15 S. W. 411. See Pa. St. 374, 22 Atl. 641, 644; P. v. S. V. Stephenson, 83 Ind. 246; S. v. Spencer, 66 Hun 149, 21 N. Y. Supp. 33. 396 hughes' criminal law. § 1528 the indictment in the case on which is indorsed the name of the person as such witness, is competent evidence.*" § 1528. Identity of briber. — Where the evidence on the trial of an alderman charged with agreeing to accept money for his vote on a street railway franchise is otherwise sufficient, it is not material as to the identity of the person promising to pay the money.''" § 1529. Proving bribery. — The allegation of the payment of money te a voter may be proved by evidence that it was under color of a loan, for which his note was taken, if it were at the same time agreed that it should be given up, after he had voted.^^ § 1530. Evidence wanting. — ^Where there is no evidence to sustain the charge of bribery as alleged, the court should, on motion, dismiss the case, the same as in any other criminal cause. °'' § 1531. Deposits in bank, when incompetent. — On a charge of ex- tortion, evidence that the accused m&de deposits of sums of money in a bank in excess of his salary as an officer during several months, including the time of the alleged ofEense, is improper, there being no correspondence between the sums so deposited and the sums alleged to have been received by him by extortion.^' § 1532. Other offenses. — Other acts of bribery than that charged in the indictment may be given in evidence, where such acts establish a continuing system under which the parties involved were acting." § 1533. Variance — Bribe offered by one or more. — An indictment alleging that the contract of bribery was made with B. and paid by him "and other persons to the grand jury unknown" is supported by proof that B. alone paid the money for the corrupt purpose charged, and there is no variance.^^ « Chrisman v. S., 18 Neb. 107. 24 » Guthrie v. S., 16 Neb. 667, 21 N. W. 434. See P. v. Northey, 77 N. W. 455, 4 Am. C. R. 81, 82; P. v. Cal. 618, 19 Pac. 865, 20 Pac. 129. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 14 N. B. 319; "P. v. O'Nell, 109 N. Y. 251, 16 P. v. Hurley, 126 Cal. 351, 58 Pac. N. E. 68, 48 Hun 36. 814. Evidence sufficient: In re " 3 Greenl. Ev., § 73. Wellcome, 23 Mont. 450, 50 Pac. 445; •" Johnson v. Com., 90 Ky. 53, 13 Com. v. Donovan, 170 Mass. 228, 49 S. W. 520, 12 Ky. L. 20. N. E. 104. "» Williams v. U. S., 168 U. S. "Guthrie v. S., 16 Neb. 667, 21 382, 18 S. Ct. 92. N. B. 455, 4 Am; 0. R. 79. CHAPTEE XXXV. EMBKACEKT. 'Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1534-1537 II. Matters of Defense, § 1538 III. Indictment, • • §§ 1539.-1540 IV. Evidence; Variance, § 1541 Article I. DEFiNiTioiir and Elements. § 1534. Embracery defined. — Embracery is an attempt to influence a jury corruptly to one side, by promises, persuasions, entreaties, money, entertainments, and the like ; and punishment is provided for the person embracing and for the juror embraced.^ § 1535. Juror summoned only, sufficient. — Under a statute making it a criminal offense " to, corrupt or attempt to corrupt a juror," is included any person who has been summoned as a juror, whether he has become one of the traverse jurymen or not.^ § 1536. Officer treating jury. — An officer in charge of a jury by taking them to a saloon and treating them at his own expense commits an offense, especially in a case where a reward has been offered for a conviction.* § 1537. A mere attempt constitutes offense. — Any effort to unlaw- fully influence a jury, whether successful or not, constitutes embrac- ery.* '4 Bl. Com. 140; Underbill Cr. See In re Haymond, 121 Cal. 385, 53 Ev., § 450; S. v. Williams, 136 Mo. Pac. 899. 293, 38 S. W. 75; S. v. Brown, 95 " S. v. Williams, 136 Mo. 293, 38 N. C. 685; Gibbs v. Dewey, 5 Cow. S. W. 75. See § 1497. (N. Y.) 503; 2 Bish. New Cr. Proc, 'P. v. Myers, 70 Cal. 582, 12 Pac. 344; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 100. 719. * S. v. Sales, 2 Nev. 268. (397) 398 hughes' criminal law. § 1538 Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1538. Juror not influenced, no defense. — It is no defense to a charge of attempting to influence a juror to hang the jury that the juror had already made up his mind to do so, under a statute which provides that "every person who corrupts or attempts to corrupt any other person summoned or sworn as a juror" shall be punished." Article III. Indictment. § 1539. Judicial proceeding essential. — An indictment charging embracery must, with other proper averments, allege the pendency of a judicial prtfceeeding at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed.* § 1540. Knowledge sufficiently stated. — An indictment charging that the defendant "did unlawfully attempt to influence" a person named, "as a juror, with intent to improperly influence his action and findings as a juror in said cause," sufficiently avers that the de- fendant knew such person was a juror.'' Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1541. Variance. — An indictment charging a person with attempt- ing to improperly influence a juror by saying to him, "See that right was done, that it would not be to his loss," and similar language, ia supported by evidence showing that the defendant said to the juror: "You are the only friend I have on the jury, and I want you to look after my rights. How wiU it go ? I will make it all right," and the like.8 "S. V. "Williams, 136 Mo. 293, 38 ' S. v. Dankwardt, 107 Iowa 70^ S. W. 75. 77 N. W. 495. 'Queen v. Leblanc, 8 Leg. News ' S. v. Dankwardt, 107 Iowa 704, 114. 77 N. W. 495. CHAPTER XXXVI. MALFEASANCE IN OEEICB. Akt. I. What Constitutes Offense, §§ 1543-1551 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1553-1554 III. Indictment, §§ 1555-1558 Article I. What Constitutes Offense. § 1542. Malfeasance in office. — Any public officer who, being prompted by corrupt or dishonest motives, does any act as an officer which he is not by law authorized to do, in such a manner as is likely to deceive and mislead others, commits the offense of malfeasance in his office.^ § 1543. Committed by extortion. — Extortion is an abuse of public justice which consists in any officer unlawfully taking, by coior of his office, from any man, any money or thing of value that is not due him, or more than is due him, or before it is due.^ And an officer collect- ing fees or costs to which he is not entitled, can not excuse his act by saying that he did not know such collections were illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.^^ § 1544. Disregard of duty — Letting contract. — A public officer who willfully disregards his plain duty in awarding a contract for the public and lets the contract to the disadvantage of the public, is guilty of criminal conduct and liable to punishment.^ "S. v. Wedge, 24 Minn. 150. Miss. 872, 15 So. 237; Com. v. Bag- M Bl. Com. 141; Com. v. Sauls- ley, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 279; P. v. Monk, bury, 152 Pa. St. 554, 25 Atl. 610; 8 Utah 35, 28 Pac. 1115; Underhill U. S. T. Deaver, 14 Fed. 599; 2 Cr. Bv., § 456. But see Cutter v. S., McClain Cr. L., § 914; 1 Bish. Cr. 36 N. J. L. 125; Cleaveland v. S., L. (new ed.), § 573; Underhill Cr. 34 Ala. 254; S. v. Pritchard, 107 N. Ev., § 456. C. 921, 12 S. E. 50. 'aLevar v. S., 103 Ga. 42, 29 S. B. «S. v. Kern, 51 N. J. L. 259, 17 467; Leggatt v. Prideaux, 16 Mont. Atl. 114. 205, 40 Pac. 377; S. v. Jones, 71 (399) 400 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. § 1545 ft § 1545. Misappropriating funds. — ^A public officer, by depositing public money entrusted to him, in a bank, on which he receives inter- est for his own personal use, is guilty of a criminal ofEense under a statute which forbids any public officer, in any manner not authorized by law, to use money entrusted to his safe keeping, in order to make a profit therefrom.* § 1546. Justice of peace — ^Wrongful act. — ^TJnder a statute provid- ing that "justices of the peace may, for corrupt acts of oppression, partiality, or malfeasance in office," be fined and removed from ofifice, an act of misconduct by a justice such as taking up estray animals and corruptly causing them to be appraised before himself, as such justice, comes within the statute.^ § 1547. Officer refusing to discharge duty. — ^A tax collector by re- fusing to receive taxes when tendered to him by a person on behalf of the person who owes the taxes, is liable to suspension from ofSce, although the person offering to pay such taxes had no authority from the person so owing, to pay his taxes. ° § 1548. De facto officer and deputy included. — The laws relating to misconduct of officers apply to any deputy officer and also to a de facto officer. When a man assumes the responsibilities and duties of a public office, he will not be permitted to dispute the validity of his ap- pointment when prosecuted for misconduct as an officer.'^ §1549. Clerk is "public officer:" "collector and custodian."— A! clerk of the judge of the probate court, appointed as provided by stat- ute, is a "public officer," within the meaning of the law relating to misconduct of public officers.* A "collector and custodian of pubhc money or property'' will include a clerk of a court who receives fines and penalties imposed by the court of which he is clerk.* § 1550. Responsible for consequences. — An officer will be held re- sponsible for the consequences of his acts, where it is in his power to determine his duty under circumstances likely to arise, and he fails to do so.i" ^S. V. Boggs, 16 Wash. 143, 47 Iowa 547; S. v. Long, 76 N. C. 254; Pac. 417. Blsh. New Cr. Proc, § 824. " Wickersham v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 'Scruggs v. S., Ill Ala. 60, 20 So. 128. 642. See S. v. Moores, 52 Neb. 770, » S. V. Johnson, 30 Fla. 499, 11 So. 73 N. W. 299. 855. « S. V. Moores, 52 Neb. 770, 73 N. 'S. V. Berkshire, 2 Ind. 207; S. "W. 299. V. Goss, 69 Me. 22; S. v. Stone, 40 "S. v. Colton, 9 Houst. (Del.) 530^ § 1551 MALl'EASANCB IN OFFICE. 401 § 1551. Officer must turn over funds — Demand. — It is the duty of a public officer who has held his office for successive terms to turn over any public money which came to his hand at any previous term, as well, as the last term, and on failure to do so he becomes criminally liaWe.^^ "Unless required by statute, a demand on an outgoing officer to turm over to his successor the public money in his hands is not essential oni a prosecution for neglecting to turn over such money to his succes- sor.^'' Article II. Matters op Defense. § 1552. Taking advice competent. — The defendant may, on a charge of willfully intruding into a public office, show that he acted in good faith after taking advice from counsel, and that his intention was not willful.^* § 1553. Mere error of judgment. — A mere error in judgment or departure from sound policy is not sufficient to subject a tribunal, possessing discretionary power, to an indictment for palpable omission of duty. Before such a prosecution can be sustained, it must be shown that there was palpable omission of duty imperatively required by law, in a matter involving no discretion, or a willful and corrupt as. well as palpable neglect of duty.^* 33 Atl. 259; S. v. Hatch, 116 N. C. Bracey v. S., 64 Miss. 17, 8 So. 163. 1003, 21 S. B. 430. See S. v. Moores, On intent as an element: S. v. Mil- 52 Neb. 770, 73 N. W. 299 (willful), ler, 100 N. C. 543, 5 S. E.,925; S. v. On misconduct and abuse of au- Kite, 81 Mo. 97; S. v. Smith, 18 N. thority by public officers, see the fol- H. 91; P. v. Burns, 75 Cal. 627, IT lowing additional cases. Officers re- Pac. 646; S. v. Morse, 52 Iowa 509, fusing to act: Buck v. Com., 90 Pa. 3 N. W. 498. St. 110; Wilson v. Com., 10 Serg. & " Johnson v. P., 123 111. 624, 627, H. (Pa.) 373; S. v. Furguson, 76 N. C. 15 N. B. 37. 197. Neglect of officer to do his duty: " S. v. Assmann, 46 S. C. 654, 24 S. V. Baldwin, 80 N. C. 390; S. v. S. E. 673. Contra, S. v. Jones, 10 Hoit, 23 N. H. 355; Com. v. Reiter, 78 Humph. (Tenn.) 41. Pa. St. 161; Moose v. S., 49 Ark. 499, "P. v. Bates, 29 N. Y. Supp. 894. 5 S. W. 885; P. v. Coon, 15 "Wend. "Eyman v. P., 1 Gilm. (111.) (N. Y.) 277. Instances of abuse: 7; S. v. Hastings, 37 Neb. 96, 55 S. v. Spidle, 44 Kan. 439, 24 Pac. N. W. 774; S. v. Welsh, 109 Iowa 965; S. v. Wedge, 24 Minn. 150; 19, 79 N. W. 369. See Stahl v. S., Duty V. S., 9 Ind. App. 595, 36 N. E. 5 Ohio C. D. 29, 11 Ohio C. C. 655; Brackenridge v. S., 27 Tex. 23. But see S. v. Assmann, 46 S. C. App. 513, 11 S. W. 630; P. v. Peck, 554, 24 S. E. 673. See also S. v. 138 N. Y. 386, 34 N. B. 347; S. v. Hatch, 116 N. C. 1003, 21 S. B. 430; Hawkins, 77 N. C. 494; S. v. Leach, Com. v. Thompson, 126 Pa. St. 614, 60 Me. 58. Misconduct of officer: 17 Atl. 754; 2 Bish. New Cr. L.„ P. V. Wheeler, 73 Cal. 252, 14 Pac. § 972. 796; S. V. Hawkins, 77 N. C. 494; hughes' c. l. — 26 402 hughes' criminal law. § 1554 § 1554. Term of officer expired.— The fact that the term of a public officer has expired will not defeat a prosecution of such person for misconduct as an officer while in office.^^ Aeticle III. Indictment. § 1555. Omitted or violated duty, essential. — In charging public officers with the offense of permitting a nuisance in a public highway, an indictment in failing to allege that the defendants omitted or vio- lated some official duty is fatally defective.^" '§ 1556. Must aver facts of misconduct. — The facts constituting the particular act of misconduct of an officer must he set out in the indictment. It is not sufficient to aver that the defendant "has con- tinued to fail, neglect, and refuse to comply with any of the pro- Tisions of the statute."^' § 1557. Duplicity — Collected and refused to turn over. — Charging in an indictment that a taz collector had, on a day stated, collected public money, and "on that day and for five days thereafter refused and omitted to turn it over," is not bad for duplicity.^' § 1558. "Knowingly" amounts to knowledge. — An indictment which charges that the defendant was knowingly concerned in un- lawfully receiving assessments from officers or employes of the United States for political purposes sufficiently avers that he knew that the persons who made the contributions were public officers.^" "Com. V. Coyle, 160 Pa. St. 36, v. S., 10 Tex. App. 515; McCuUough 28 Atl. 576, 634. v. S., 63 Ala. 75. " Com. V. Kinnaird, 18 Ky. L. 647, "Dixon v. S., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 37 S. W. 840; S. v. Darling, 89 Me. 312; S. v. Longley, 10 Ind. 482. 400, 36 Atl. 632. See also P. v. "P. v. Otto, 70 Cal. 523, 11 Pac. Meakim, 133 N. Y. 214, 30 N. B. 828; 675. Bussell v. S., 57 Ga. 420; Hatch " U. S. v. Scott, 74 Fed. 213. CHAPTER XXXVII. RESISTING OFFICER. Art. I. What Constitutes, §§ 1559-1560 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1561-1570 III. Indictment, §§ 1571-1579 IV. Evidence, §§ 1580-1581 Article I. What Constitutes. § 1559. Essential elements. — To constitute the offense of resisting an ofScer, the officer or person resisted must be authorized to execute the process in the execution of which he is resisted, the process must he a legal process emanating from a court or person having jurisdic- tion to issue it, and the officer at the time and place must be authorized in law to serve or execute the same.^ § 1560. Special officer included. — The language of the statute is: "Every person who shall hinder, obstruct, resist, or abuse any justice of the peace, or resist, hinder, obstruct, or abuse any sheriil, deputy sheriff, constable, or other officer, in the execution of his office, shall be punished." Such statute includes a special officer ; that is, a private person deputed to serve or execute some process.^ Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1661. Execution sale. — If an officer selling goods by virtue of an execution be resisted in delivering possession to the purchaser, such resistance is a violation.* "Bowers v. P., 17 111. 374; S. v. 'S. v. Moore, 39 Conn. 244, 1 Hooker, 17 Vt. 658; Cantrill v. P., Green C. R. 298; 4 Bl. Com. 129. 3 Gilm. (111.) 357; S. v. Bstis, 70 ^Mitchell v. S.. 101 Ga, 578, 28 Mo. 427. See P. v. Nash, 1 Idaho S. E. 916. 404 hughes' criminal law. § 1562 § 1562. Resisting arrest. — On a charge of resisting an officer who- ■was attempting to arrest the defendant, it is no defense that some time after the attempted arrest the defendant offered to go with the officer before some other justice than the one by whom the warrant was issued.* § 1563. Officer showing warrant. — It is no defense to a charge of resisting an officer making an arrest that the officer did not show the warrant where the defendant knew the oflBcial character of the officer and that he had a warrant.** § 1564. Arrested person not guilty. — It is no defense to a charge of resisting an officer in making an arrest that the person, arrested is not guilty of the offense charged.* § 1565. Arrest unlawful. — It is no ofEense in breaking away from an officer where improperly deprived of liberty by process issued with- out jurisdiction.'' An officer in attempting to execute his writ by taking the wrong person or property may be resisted.* § 1566. Resisting unreasonable violence. — Where an officer in making an arrest uses unreasonable violence, it is not an ofiense to use reasonable force in repelling such unreasonable violence.' § 1567. Assaulting officer — ^Putting in fear. — Attacking an officer with a weapon while attempting to make a lawful arrest, and threat- ening to shoot him, or in any manner putting him in fear while in the discharge of his duty, constitutes an offense.^" § 1568. Stealing goods from officer. — To defeat an officer in the execution of his process, by stealing the goods from him taken by ' King v. S., 89 Ala. 43, 8 So. 120. ant to show the Invalidity of tlie " S. V. Dula, 100 N. C. 423, 6 S. E. warrant. S. v. Freeman, 8 Iowa 89. 428; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 446. " S. V. Garrett, 80 Iowa 590, 40 N. » S. v. Dennis, 2 Marv. (Del.) 433, W. 748; Com. v. Tracey, 5 Mete. 43 Atl. 261. (Mass.) 552. '» S. v. Seery, 95 Iowa 652, 64 N. 'Housh v. P., 75 111. 491 (citing S. W. 631; S. v. Russell (Iowa), V. Leach, 7 Conn. 452); 2 McClain 76 N. W. 653; S. v. Dennis, 2 Cr. L., § 922; P. v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. Marv. (Del.) 433, 43 Atl. 261; Arm- 421, 28 Pac. 577; S. v. Beebe, 13 strong v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 46 Kan. 589; S. v. Jones, 78 N. C. 420. La. 1448, 16 So. 468. See Wood- 'Wentworth v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) wbrth v. S., 26 Ohio St. 196. 555. The burden is on the defend- ■§ 1569 RESISTING OPFICBK. 405 virtue of his writ, is not "resisting an officer." Such taking of the property is larceny if the officer was rightfully entitled to the posses- sion of the same.^^ § 1569. "When not resisting. — The defendant did nothing except io lay up the fence which the officer was pulling down to enable him to take a piece of machinery that he was not entitled to take by a writ of possession : Held not an offense of resisting.^^ § 1570. Taking, when not resistance.^Where property which has been levied upon by the sheriff and left in charge of another is pri- vately taken away by the person claiming to be the owner, it is not a Tiolation of the statute for "willfully obstructing, resisting, or oppos- ing any sheriff or other officer in serving or executing any lawful pro- cess."^' Article III. Indictment. § 1571. Statutory words sufficient. — Describing the offense in the indictment in the words of the statute is sufficient; words importing knowledge, such as "knowingly," are not essential in the description, unless made so by statutory definition.^* § 1572. Describing "process." — An indictment for obstructing an officer in the service of legal process, must expressly allege such pro- cess to be a "lawful process," or so describe it that it shall appear to be so.^^ The indictment must allege that the warrant which the officer was serving when resisted was a "lawful process," or so describe it that it shall appear to be so, on the face of the indictment.^* A general averment that the process was a "lawful process," and the person resisted a public officer, authorized to execute the same, as a constable, in the execution of which he is resisted or opposed, is suffi- cient allegation both of the validity of the process and the jurisdic- tion of the officer.^^ " Davis V. S., 76 Ga. 721. " S. v. Plagg, 50 N. H. 330. "= Smith V. P., 99 111. 447; U. S. "S. v. Flagg, 50 N. H. 321, 330; V. Terry, 42 Fed. 317; Agee v. S., 64 S. v. Beasom, 40 N. H. 367. For Ind. 340; P. v. Hopson, 1 Denio (N. form of Indictment held sufficient, Y.) 574. see Bowers v. P., 17 111. 373. "Davis V. S., 76 Ga. 721. "Bowers v. P., 17 111. 374; Can- "S. V. Perkins, 43 La. 186, 8 So. trill v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 356; Mc- 439; S. V. Ashworth, 43 La. 204, 8 Quoid v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 80; S. v. So. 625; S. v. Morrison, 46 Kan. Moore, 39 Conn. 244; Slicker v. S., ■679, 27 Pac. 133. 13 Ark. 397; S. v. Roberts, 52 N. H. 406 hughes' criminal law. § 1573: § 1573. Description of officer's process immaterial. — ^By statutory provision of Alabama, an indictment charging the offense of unlaw- fully resisting an officer, in serving criminal process, need not describft the offense named in the warrant or by whom issued, nor need it state the date of the warrant.^^ § 1574. Officer's act to be alleged. — In stating the offense, it is not sufficient to allege in general terms that the officer resisted was ia the due and legal performance of his duty. The indictment should aver what he was doing.^* § 1575. Alleging how resisted. — Following the words of the statute,, an information which alleges that the defendant did unlawfully "re- sist, delay, and obstruct" an officer in the discharge of his duty is sufficient, and need not set out in what manner he resisted.^" 'y § 1576. Alleging knowledge — "Knowingly." — An indictment in charging the defendant with assaulting an "officer of the penitenti- ary," without alleging that he knew him to be an officer, is defective." Under a statute making it an offense to "knowingly and willfully" resist an officer in serving process, an indictment which charges the defendant with "unlawfully and willfully" resisting the officer is de- fective. The word willfully does not convey the meaning of know- ingly.'' § 1577. Stating name, immaterial. — In charging the offense of re- sisting an officer in the discharge of his duty in carrying a prisoner to jail, it is not necessary to state the name of the prisoner in the indictment, nor is it necessary to set out the warrant.'^ 492, 1 Green C. R. 157; S. v. Cassady, 71 Fed. 286; Com. v. Israel, 4 Leigb 52 N. H. 500, 1 Green C. R. 163. (Va.) 675; Patten v. S. (Tex. Cr.), ''Howard v. S., 121 Ala. 21, 25 49 S. W. 389; S. v. Brown, 6 Wash. So. 1000. 609, 34 Pac. 133; S. v. Phipps, 34 "S. V. Flagg, 50 N. H. 321; S. v. Mo. App. 400; Brlstow v. S., 36 Tex. Johnson, 42 La. 559, 7 So. 588. Con- Cr. 379, 37 S. W. 326; S. v. Carpen- tra. S. v. Pickett, 118 N. C. 1231, 24 ter, 54 Vt. 551, 4 Am. C. R. 560. S. E. 350. ^ S. V. Perry, 109 Iowa 353, 80 =° P. V. Hunt, 120 Cal. 281, 52 Pac. N. W. 401. 658. ^S. V. Garrett, 80 Iowa 589, 46 "'S. V. Smith, 11 Or. 205, 8 Pac. N. W. 748; S. v. Dunn, 109 N. C> 343; S. V. Maloney, 12 R. I. 251; S. 839, 13 S. E. 881. v. Burt, 25 Vt. 373; Blake v. U. S., § 1578 RESISTING' OFFICER. 407 § 1578. Arresting without warrant. — On a charge of resisting an. officer in making an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant, the indictment, in failing to allege that the ofEense was one for which the officer could lawfully make an arrest without a warrant, is fatally de- fective.^* § 1579. Persons assisting ofBcer. — Where an officer has persons as- sisting him in serving lawful process and the accused knew such persons were assisting, it is not necessary to allege in the indictment that the officer had requested them to assist him.^° Article IV. Evidence. § 1580. Proving person to be officer. — It must appear in evidence that the person resisted was an officer, and this fact may be proved by parol evidence.^" Proof that an individual has acted notoriously as a public officer is prima facie evidence of his official character with- out producing his commission or appointment. That the officer is one de facto is sufficient.^'' § 1581. Officer de facto sufficient. — Evidence that the person as- saulted was at the time of the assault and with the defendant's knowl- edge acting as a police officer and wearing a uniform and badge of such an officer, was competent and sufficient evidence of his official capacity. The want of similar proof as to any other time or offense might affect the weight but not the competency of such evidence.^® "McKinney v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 22 66 Iowa 670, 24 N. W. 268; S. v. S. W. 146. . Brooks, 39 La. 817, 2 So. 498; P. v. '"S. V. Emery, 65 Vt. 464, 27 Atl. Hopson, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 574; Robin- 167. son V. S., 82 Ga. 535, 9 S. E. 528; 1 ^Merritt v. S. (Miss.), 5 So. Greenl. Bv., § 83; Coekerman v. S. 386; Com. v. McCue, 16 Gray (Miss.), 19 So. 195; Underhill Cr. (Mass.) 226; S. v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa Ev., § 446. See S. v. Sherburne, 5» 169; S. V. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 551; S. N. H. 99; Com. v. Tobin, 108 Mass. V. Beasom, 40 N. H. 367; Pettibone 429; Reg. v. Viekery, 12 Q. B. 478. V. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 S. Gt. 542; =»Com. v. Tobin, 108 Mass. 429; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 446. Reg. v. Viekery, 12 Q. B. 478; S. v. " S. V. Roberts, 52 N. H. 492, 1 Roberts, 52 N. H. 492, 1 Green C. R. Green 0. R. 158; S. v. Dierberger, 90 158; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 83. Mo. 369, 2 S. W. 286; S. v. Watson, CHAPTEE XXXVIII. PERJURY. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1583-1610 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1611-1623 III. Indictment, §§ 1624-1649 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1650-1669 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1582. Perjury defined : "willfully and falsely." — Perjury consists in willfully and falsely swearing to a fact material to the point in issue before a court or tribunal having legal authority to inquire into the cause or matter investigated.^ To sustain a charge of perjury the evidence must prove the following essential elements : (1) The au- thority of the officer to administer the oath; (2) the occasion of ad- ministering it; (3) the taking of the oath by the accused; (4) the substance of the oath; (5) the material matter sworn to; (6) the introductory averments; (7) the falsity of the matter sworn to; and (8) the corrupt intention of the accused.^ To commit perjury a person must "willfully, corruptly and falsely" swear or affirm. The false assertion made by the witness under oath must be known to such witness to be false and must be intended by him or her to mislead the court or jury.^ '4 Bl. Com. 137; Pankey v. P., 3 Greenl. Ev., § 189, as to essential 1 Scam. (111.) 81; S. v. Hunt, 137 averments. Ind. 537, 9 Am. C. R. 433, 37 N. B. » Coyne v. P., 124 111. 24, 14 N. B. 409. See S. v. Houston, 103 N. C. 668; Johnson v. P., 94 111. 505; P. 383, 8 Am. C. R. 631, note; S. v. v. German, 110 Mich. 244, 68 N. W. Mace, 76 Me. 64, 5 Am. C. R. 589; 150. See S. v. Higgins, 124 Mo. Hood V. S., 44 Ala. 86; Greenl. 640, 28 S. W. 178; P. v. Ross, 103 Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 188; Underbill Cr. Cal. 425, 37 Pac. 379; Bell v. Sen- Ev., § 466. nefe, 83 111. 122; P. v. WlUey, 2 '2 Roscoe Cr. Ev., 836, 1045. See Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 19; Thomas v. (408) § 1583 PERJURY. 409 §1583. Inciting another— Both must know falsity. — To consti- tute the crime of inciting another to commit perjury it must appear that the accused was urging the other witness to give false testimony, knowing that the other, as well as himself, was aware of its falsity. They both must know it to be false.* § 1584. Subornation — ^What essential. — In order to convict the ac- cused of subornation of perjury it is essential for the common- wealth to show that the person whom he is alleged to have suborned has committed perjury.^ "Subornation of perjury is the offense of procuring another to take such a false oath, as constitutes perjury in the principal.'" § 1585. Knowledge, when essential. — Swearing falsely to material matters in an affidavit is not perjury, unless it be shown that the de- fendant in making the affidavit knew it was to be used as evidence in the particular proceeding in which it was used and that he made the affidavit for that purpose.'' § 1586. Degree of materiality. — The degree of materiality of the matter testified to is of no importance, for if it tends to prove the matter in hand it is enough, though it be but circumstantial. Ques- tions affecting the defendant's credit as a witness are material.' And a witness' answers on cross-examination are material and may be as- signed as perjury, however discursive they may be, if they go to his credit as a witness.' S., 71 Ga. 252; S. v. Cruikshank, 6 «3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 195, 196; Queen Blackf. (Ind.) 62; Miller v. S., 15 v. Baker, L. R. (1895) 1 Q. B. 797, Fla. 577; Green v. S., 41 Ala. 419; 9 Am. C. R. 421; S. v. Day, 100 Mo. Williams v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 493; 242, 12 S. W. 365; S. v. Clogston, 63 Davidson v. S., 22 Tex. App. 372, 3 Vt. 215, 22 Atl. 607; Masterson v. S. W. 662; 1 Hawk. P. C. 429, § 2. S., 144 Ind. 240, 43 N. E. 138; P. v. * Coyne v. P., 124 111. 25, 14 N. E. Macard, 109 Mich. 623, 67 N. W. 668 (citing 2 Whar. Cr. L. (9tli ed.), 968; Hanscom v. S., 93 Wis. 273, § 1329); U. S. V. Evans, 19 Fed. 912; 67 N. W. 419; S. v. Hunt, 137 Ind. P. V. Ross, 103 Cal. 425, 37 Pac. 537, 37 N. E. 409, 9 Am. C. R. 433; 379. George v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 646, 50 S. "Maybush v. Com., 29 Gratt. (Va.) W. 374, 51 S. W. 378; Dilcher v. S., 857, 3 Am. C. R. 293, citing 2 Bish. 39 Ohio St. 130; P. v. Courtney, 94 Cr. Proc, § 879; V. S. v. Evans, 19 N. Y. 490; 4 Bl. Com. 137. Fed. 912; U. S. v. Wilcox, 4 Blatcli. • S. v. Hunt, 137 Ind. 537, 9 Am. 393. See 3 Greenl. Ev., § 188. C. R. 434, 37 N. E. 409; Hanscom v. " 4 Bl. Com. 138. S., 93 Wis. 273, 67 N. W. 419; 3' ' Rowe V. S., 99 Ga. 706, 27 S. E. Greenl. Ev., § 195. 710. 410 hughes' criminal law. § 1587 § 1587. Witness' credibility material. — If a person as a witness testifies that he never had been tried in the central criminal court and had never b^en in custody at a certain station named, knowing such testimony to be false, he is guilty of perjury.^" If the evidence given by a witness in direct examination is not material his testi- mony on cross-examination on matters relating only to his credibility can not be the foundation for a charge of perjury.^^ • § 1588. Belief should be reasonable. — A man can not corruptly swear falsely and shield himself from the penalty of perjury by stat- ing in his affidavit that he believes his statement to be true. The belief of the accused should be reasonable and not capricious and willfully entertained without reasonably fair evidence upon which it may be based.^^ . § 1589. Matter, when material. — Willful false swearing in at- tempting to identify a person by a photograph, where the identity of such person was material in a prosecution for offering a forged deed for record, is sufficiently material to base perjury upon it.^° § 1590. Materiality, question of law. — Whether the evidence upon which perjury is assigned be material or not is a question entirely for the court and not the jury.^* But where by statute the jury in a criminal case is made the judge of the law and the evidence, the de- fendant on a perjury, charge has the right to have submitted to the jury the materiality of the testimony charged to be false in the case in which it was given."^^ § 1591. Perjury on imperfect pleadings; defective proceedings. — Perjury may be assigned on testimony which, under the pleading, "Reg. V. Lavey, 3 C. & R. 26; "P. v. Von Tiedeman, 120 Cal. Com. V. Bonner, 97 Mass. 587; S. v. 128, 52 Pac. 155. Park, 57 Kan. 431, 46 Pac. 713; "Gordon v. S., 48 N. J. L. fill. Com. V. Johnson, 175 Mass. 152, 55 7 Atl. 476; U. S. v. Singleton, 54 N. E. 804; Williams v. S., 28 Tex. Fed. 488; S. v. Williams, 30 Mo. App. 301, 12 S. W. 1103. See also 364; 2 Thompson Trials, § 2187; U. S. v. Landsberg, 23 Fed. 585, 21 S. v. Caywood, 96 Iowa 367, 65 N. Blatchf. 159, 4 Am. C. R. 475; S. v. W. 385; S. v. Swafford, 98 Iowa 362, Mooney, 65 Mo. 494; Reg. v. Gib- 67 N. W. 284; Peters v. U. S., 2 tons, 9 Cox C. C. 105. Okla. 138, 37 Pac. 1081; P. v. Lem " Stanley v. U. S., 1 Okla. 336, 33 You, 97 Cal. 224, 32 Pac. 11; Hans- Pac. 1025. com v. S., 93 Wis. 273, 67 N. W. '= Johnson v. P., 94 111. 513, 514; 419; S. v. Park, 57 Kan. 431, 46 Rex v. Pedley, 1 Leach 365; Com. Pac. 713. V. Cornish, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 249. '"S. v. Spencer, 45 La. 1, 12 So. 135. i 1592 PERJURY. 411 sphere given, was objectionable ; but if not objected to the imperfection in the pleadings will be out of the case.^° Where a witness willfully testifies falsely in a proceeding which may be voidable, but not void, before a justice or court, and which could be met by amendment, perjury can be prosecuted on such false testimony.^' § 1592. Before grand jury. — Willful false swearing before a grand jury on a material matter relating to some particular case under investigation is perjury. But if the false swearing be in reference to a general investigation by the grand jury, directed to no particular end, it is not perjury.^^ § 1593. Perjury in making affidavit. — Perjury may be based on a false statement in an affidavit, on a material matter, where such affida- vit is required to be made on making an application to purchase gov- ernment lands.^® § 1594. Affidavit for continuance. — The defendant in his affidavit for a continuance on a burglary charge stated that his absent witness, naming him, would swear on the trial that he, the defendant, was at his home at the time of the burglary, and that he had no other witness by whom he could prove that he was at home, as stated in the affidavit. The statement in the affidavit that he has no other witness to prove- that he was at home is a material allegation upon which perjury could be assigned.^" § 1595. In making affidavit for writ. — An affidavit may be falsely- made to procure a writ of arrest, or as a foundation for a proceeding to compel another to keep the peace and the like, in each of which the essential quality of indictable perjury material to the point of inquiry exists.^^ " Cronk V. P., 131 111. 60, 22 N. E. 89; S. v. OfCutt, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 862; S. V. Holier, 1 Dev. (N. C.) 263; 355; Mackin v. P., 115 111. 321, 3 N, Morford v. Ter. (Okla., 1901), 63 E. 222; S. v. Turley, 153 Ind. 345^ Pac. 958; Chamberlain v. P., 23 N. Y. 55 N. E. 30. , 85; Reg. v. Gibbon, L. & C. 109; "U. S. v. "Wood, 70 Fed. 485. Crump V. Com., 75 Va. 922; S. v. "^ Sanders v. P., 124 111. 222, 16 N. Trask, 42 Vt. 152. See Warner v. E. 81; S. v. Bunker, 38 Kan. 737, 17 Fowler, 8 Md. 25. Pac. 651. See also Maybush v. *'Maynard v. P., 135 111. 431, 25 Com., 29 Gratt. (Va.) 857, 3 Am. C. N. E. 740; 2 Blsh. Cr. L. (5tli ed.) R. 292; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 190; S. v. 1028; S. V. Brown, 68 N. H. 200, 38 Winstandley, 151 Ind. 316; 51 N. E, Atl. 731. 92; S. v. Matlock, 48 La. 663, 19 So. ^' Pipes V. S., 26 Tex. App. 318, 9 669. S. W. 614; Banks v. S., 78 Ala. 14; "Jacobs v. S., 61 Ala. 448, 6 Am. P. V. Greenwell, 5 Utah 112, 13 Pac. C. R. 467; S. v. Johnson, 7 Blackf.. 412 ^hughes' criminal law.' § 1596 § 1596. Affidavit, not used. — Although the false testimony was given in an affidavit or deposition which was not actually used en the trial for and in which it was taken, it is, nevertheless, perjury.'* § 1597. Attorney swearing falsely. — ^Where an attorney in an affi- davit for an attachment falsely and knowingly states that he is the attorney for the plaintiff his statement is material on which perjury can be based.^* § 1598. Affidavit includes "deposition." — Under a statute which states the time when depositions shall be deemed complete as a basis for perjury the term "deposition" will include afBdavits.^* § 1599. Matter, when immaterial. — A disinterested witness, in making the required affidavit for an applicant for vacant lands, is not guilty of perjury in swearing that the lands for which application is made are "unimproved," if there were no buildings thereon suscep- tible of occupancy as abodes, though the lands may be under cultiva- tion and fences thereon.^^ § 1600. Swearing in land contest. — Swearing falsely in a land contest before the register or receiver of a local land office respecting an entry of a homestead is perjury, although such contest is not specially authorized by statute, but is authorized by the rules of the land department under a general grant of authority to prescribe ap- propriate regulations for the disposition of the public lands."' § 1601. Matter, when immaterial. — The defendant testified before the grand jury that he had not purchased nor seen any one purchase intoxicating liquors in a certain town on Sunday for two years : Held not material on which to base perjury, because the statute makes sales made on Sunday criminal acts only when made by certain traders.'" (Ind.) 49. See Meyers v. V. S., 5 "P. v. Eobles, 117 Cal. 681, 49 Okla. 173, 48 Pac. 186. Pac. 1042. See P. v. Maxwell, 118 "S. V. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245; Cal. 50, 50 Pac. 18. P. V. Naylor, 82 Cal. 607, 23 Pac. =Com. v. Clark, 157 Pa. St 257, 116; U. S. V. Volz, 14 Blatch. (U. S.) 27 Atl. 723. 15; Reg. v. Vreones, L. R. (1891) ^°Caha v. V. S., 152 U. S. 211, 14 1 Q. B. D. 360; Shell v. S., 148 Ind. S. Ct. 513; Peters v. U. S., 2 Okla. 50, 47 N. E. 144. See S. v. Geer, 46 116, 33 Pac. 1031. But see U. S. v. Kan. 529, 26 Pac. 1027. But see P. Manion, 44 Fed. 800. v. Pox, 25 Mich. 492. "t Meeks v. S., 32 Tex. Or. 420, 24 " S. V. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425, 59 S. W. 98. N. W. 490. § 1602 PERJURY. 41S § 1602. Matter must be material. — That the matter sworn to and alleged to be false must be material to the issue, see the following § 1603. Officer administering oath. — It is a material and important fact for the prosecution to establish that the oath administered to the witness, on which perjury is alleged, was legally administered, and that the officer administering the oath had authority and jurisdiction to swear the witness. When the prosecution has made prima facie proof of the fact, the right to contradict it is clear and unequivocal and can not be controverted by presumptions that the appointing power has performed its duty.^° § 1604. Officer must have authority. — There is no perjury in false testimony giv?n under the sanction of an oath unless such oath is ad- ministered by some one having legal authority, and the case, proceed- ing or matter in respect of which it is administered must be one of which the tribunal or magistrate has jurisdiction.^" § 1605. Officer, when authorized. — An assessor or other officer is not authorized to administer an oath outside his township or territorial limits unless expressly authorized by statute.'^ § 1606. Officer not authorized. — A person who is not an elector at a primary 'election will not be guilty of perjury in taking a false oath before the primary election officer, because such officer is authorized by the statute to administer oaths only to electors and not to persons who are not electors.^^ ™ Miller V. S., 15 Fla. 577; Com. ™Maynard v. P., 135 III. 425, 25 V. Grant, 116 Mass. 17; S. v. Hatta- N. E. 740; 2 Bish. Cr. L. (Sth ed.), way, 2 N. & M. (S. C.) 118, 10 Am. § 1020; Morrell v. P., 32 111. 499; D. 580; S. V. Lawson, 98 N. C. 759, Renew v. S., 79 Ga. 162, 4 S. B. 19; 4 S. B. 134; S. v. Trask, 42 Vt. 152; Ter. v. Anderson, 2 Idaho 537, 21 S. V. Hobbs, 40 N. H. 229; S. v. Pac. 417; S. v. Wilson, 87 Tenn. 693, Aikens, 32 Iowa 403; Hembree v. 11 S. W. 792; Greene v. P., 182 111. S., 52 Ga. 242; Nelson v. S., 47 Miss. 278, 55 N. B. 341; Lavender v. S., 621; Hicks v. S., 86 Ala. 30, 5 So. 85 Ga. 539, 11 S. B. 361; Anderson 425; S. v. Murphy, 101 N. C. 697, v. S., 24 Tex. App. 715, 7 S. "W. 40; 8 S. B. 142; Saunders v. P., 124 111., S. v. Furlong, 26 Me. 69; S. v. 218, 16 N. E. 81. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245. See P. =" Lambert v. P., 76 N. Y. 220, 230; v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 50 Pac. 20. 2 Hawk. P. C. (7th ed.) 86. See 3 "Van Busen v. P., 78 111. 647; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 190; V. S. v. Curtis, McClain Cr. L., § 855. 107 U. S. 671, 2 S. Ct. 507; Van ^^Com. v. Polluck, 6 Pa. Dist. R. Dusen v. P., 78 111. 645. 559. 414 hughes' criminal law. § 1607 § 1607. Officer de facto. — The rule founded upon public policy, which requires the acts of de facto officers to be treated for many pur- poses as valid and binding, does not apply when an oath administered by such an officer is made the foundation of a prosecution for per- jury.'^ § 1608. railure to claim privilege. — If a person voluntarily testify hefore the grand jury about the matter on which he is indicted, with- out claiming his privilege as a witness, perjury may be assigned upon it if his testimony is willfully false.'* § 1609. E.esult of case immaterial. — Evidence as to the outcome or result of the case in which the perjury is alleged to have been com- mitted is immaterial. It is not necessary to allege or prove the final determination of that case.*° § 1610. On affidavit for continuance — ^When defective. — On a charge of perjury for willfully falsely swearing to an affidavit for a continuance of a cause, it makes no difference that the continuance was denied for a failure to show diligence, or other defect; if the affidavit was false as to a material fact necessary to support the gen- eral ground upon which a continuance was asked, the perjury was committed.^' Aeticle II. Matters of Defense. § 1611. Swearing in void proceedings. — Swearing falsely in a mat- ter which is a void proceeding, or before a body illegally constituted, is not perjury, however corrupt the intention may have been in so swearing.'^ "Biggerstaff v. Com., 11 Bush ""P. v. Williams, 92 Hun 354, 36 (Ky.) 169, 1 Am. C. R. 497, 500; S. N. Y. Supp. 511; Com. v. Moore, 9 V. Hascall, 6 N. H. 352. See 3 Greenl. Pa. Co. Ct. R. 501. A trial for perjury Ev., § 190; Lambert v. P., 76 N. Y. may proceed to a conclusion though 220; Muir v. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 154; the case in which the perjury was Rex V. Verelst, 3 Camp. 432. committed is still pending: Greene « Mackin v. P., 115 111. 321, 3 N. v. P., 182 111. 278, 55 N. B. 341. See E. 222, 56 Am. R. 157; P. v. Court- P. v. Hayes, 140 N. Y. 484, 35 N. B. ney, 94 N. Y. 490; S. v. Hawkins, 115 951; U. S. v. Pettus, 84 Fed. 791. N. C. 712, 20 S. E. 623; Pipes v. S., =• Sanders v. P., 124 111. 223, 16 26 Tex. App. 318, 9 S. W. 614. See N. E. 81; Com. v. Grant, 116 Mass. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 191. See also Com. 17; Wood v. P., 59 N. Y. 117; S. v. Turner, 98 Ky. 526, 17 Ky. L.. v. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49. 925, 33 S. W. 88; S. v. Turley, 153 ''Urquhart v. S., 103 Ala. 90, 16 Ind. 345, 55 N. B. 30. So. 17; Com. v. Hillenbrand, 96 Ky. § 1612 PERJURY. 415 § 1612. Affidavit immaterial. — Perjury can not be assigned upon an affidavit made with the view of applying for an order of seizure of goods, if no such application was actually made or no such order was obtained. Such affidavit is extra-judicial and can not be made the basis of perjury.^* § 1613. In suit not commenced. — The defendant tried to induce another to commit perjury by falsely swearing in a suit when it should he commenced and tried: Held not to be perjury "in a proceeding before any court, tribunal or officer created by law, or in relation to which an oath or affirmation is by law authorized."^^ § 1614. Acquittal of former charge — Defense. — The fact that the defendant was acquitted on a charge of adultery, in which cause he testified that he had not had sexual intercourse with a certain woman, is a bar to a prosecution for perjury alleged to have been committed by swearing that he had not had sexual intercourse with the woman.*' § 1615. Result of former trial immaterial. — The defendant may be guilty of perjury though the party whose case was being investigated was innocent, and in fact no such offense had been committed by him." § 1616. Pending ease not essential. — Under a statute providing that "if any person endeavor to incite or procure another to commit perjury, though no perjury be committed, he shall be punished," it is not necessary to show that a case was actually pending.*^ § 1617. Oath not authorized. — Swearing falsely in a matter or pro- ceeding without the authority of any court or where no oath is re- quired by statute, can not be made the foundation of perjury.*^ 407, 16 Ky. L. 485, 29 S. W. 287. See " Cooper v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 546, 51 "Weaver v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 554, 31 S. S. W. 789, 45 L. R. A. 216. W. 400; U. S. v. Jackson, 20 D. C. ■" S. v. ScMll, 27 Iowa 263; S. v. 424; Morford v. Ter. (Okla., 1901), Williams, 61 Kan. 739, 60 Pac. 1050; 63 Pac. 958. S. v. Wakefield, 73 Mo. 549; Mackin' »* Jacobs V. S., 61 Ala. 448, 4 Am. v. P., 115 111. 325, 3 N. B. 222; Hutch- C. R. 468; P. v. Fox, 25 Mich. 492. erson v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 67, 24 S. W. See also P. v. Gaige, 26 Mich. 30, 1 908. Green C. R. 524; Silver v. S., 17 '"^ S. v. Waddle, 100 Iowa 57, 69 Ohio 365; Com. v. Kimhall, 108 N. W. 279. But see S. v. Howard, Mass. 473. 137 Mo. 289, 38 S. W. 908; Nicholson " S. V. Joaquin, 69 Me. 218, 2 v. S., 97 Ga. 672, 25 S. E. 360. Am. C. R. 651; Reg. v. Bishop, Car. "U. S. v. Babcock, 4 McLean (U. & M. 302; S. V. Plummer, 50 Me. 217. S.) 115; Lamden v. S., 5 Humph. 416 hughes' criminal law. § 1618 § 1618. Person who administered oath, unauthorized. — The evi- dence must show that the person who administered the oath was authorized by law to administer it to warrant a conviction. A jurat of the clerk, under seal, is not sufQcient.** No oath taken before those who take upon them to administer oaths of a public nature without legal authority can ever amount to perjury in the eye of the law, for they are of no manner of f orce.*° § 1619. Swearing before unauthorized person. — ^An ofiSeer elect, such as assessor, is not authorized to administer oaths before the time fixed by law for him to enter upon the discharge of his duties, nor can one officer administer oaths for another, as a justice, for a coroner, if not authorized by statute.*" § 1620. Validity of election of officer, immaterial. — On the trial of an indictment charging perjury, alleged to have been committed before a justice of the peace, the validity of the election of such jus- tice can not be questioned.*^ § 1621. Advice from attorney. — On a charge of perjury the de- fendant may show that he consulted an, attorney at law in reference to the matter about which he testified and that but for the advice of the attorney he would not have testified as he did.** § 1622. Defendant may disprove alleged firm. — The defendant may show on a charge of perjury in swearing that he had never been a member of a certain firm, that no such firm ever existed, although he may have stated to certain persons that he had been a member of the alleged firm.*" § 1623. Matter immaterial — Defense. — The oath upon which per- jury was assigned was upon the examination of the accused in open (Tenn.) 83; S. v. McCarthy, 41 Ga. 539, 11 S. E. 861; S. v. Theriot, Minn. 59, 42 N. W. 599. 50 La. 1187, 24 So. 179. " Morrell v. P., 32 111. 502; U. S. v. " S. v. Phippen, 62 Iowa 54, 17 N. Garcelon, 82 Fed. 611; S. v. Theriot, W. 146; S. v. Knight, 84 N. C. 789. 50 La. 1187, 24 So. 179; Underhill See S. v. Cannon, 79 Mo. 343. Or. Bv., § 470. "P. v. DeCarlo, 124 Cal. 462, 57 "BiggerstafE v. Com., 11 Bush Pac. 383. (Ky.) 169, 1 Am. C. R. 499; 1 Hawk. " S. v. McKinney, 42 Iowa 205; P. C, ch. -69, § 4; V. S. v. Manion, Jesse v. S., 20 Ga. 156. 44 Fed. 800. See Lavender y. S., 85 " S. v. Smith, 119 N. C. 856, 25 S. E. 871. § 1624 PERJURY. 417 court, touching his qualifications to give bail for another for three thousand dollars. The material point of inquiry was not whether he- ■was worth the definite sum of forty thousand dollars,, as he had sworn, but whether he was fully able to respond to the sum of three thousand dollars. If that amount could be readily made, with costs and interest, out of his property, it was whglly immaterial whether .ten times the amount could or not.^" Article III. Indictment. § 1624. Essential elements. — The essential elements of the indict- ment are as follows: (1) A judicial proceeding; (3) a lawful oath to be taken; (3) the false testimony given; (4) the materiality of the testimony; (5) that the testimony was willfully false.°^ § 1625. Jurisdiction must appear. — The indictment should allege expressly that the court had jurisdiction, or set forth a state of faets- f rom which the jurisdiction would appear ; otherwise the oath is extra- judicial."" § 1626. Oath must be material; also facts sworn to. — It is neces- sary that it should appear on the face of the indictment that the oath taken was material to the question depending.^' Not only the falsity but the materiality of the fact sworn to must appear from the aver- ments in the indictment.'* "Pollard V. P., 69 111. 150; Gib- Pac. 51. See Maynard v. P., 135 111. son V. S., 44 Ala. 17; U. S. v. How- 425, 25 N. E. 740; 3 Greenl. Ev., ard, 37 Fed. 666. See Com. v. § 190; Cope v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 721, 47 Hughes, 5 Allen (Mass.) 499; Com. S. W. 436; Fitch v. Com, 92 Va. V. Butland, 119 Mass. 317; Stratton 824, 24 S. B. 272. V. P., 20 Hun (N. y.) 288. »'Kimmel v. P., 92 111. 459; Pol- "'3 Greenl. Ev., § 189; S. v. Huck- lard v. P., 69 111. 153; Adams v. S. ehy, 8 Mo. 414. See § 1582. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. W. 270; Cravey v. =" Franklin v. S., 91 Ga. 713, 17 S., 33 Tex. Cr. 557, 28 S. W. 472; S. B. 987; Elghmy v. P., 79 N. Y. Jacobs v. S., 61 Ala. 448, 4 Am. C. R. 546; Com. v. Butland, 119 Mass. 317; 466; S. v. McCormick, 52 Ind. 169; S. v. Nelson, 146 Mo. 256, 48 S. W. Perdue v. Com., 96 Pa. St. 311; Scott 84; P. v. Howard, 111 Cal. 655, 44 v. S.. 35 Tex. Cr. 11, 29 S. W. 274. Pac. 342; Rich v. U. S., 1 Okla. 354, See P. v. Ross, 103 Cal. 425, 37 Pac 33 Pac. 804; Pankey v. P., 1 Scam. 379. (111.) 80; Montgomery v. S., 10 Ohio "Morrell v. P., 32 111. 501; Hem- 220; P. V. Ross, 103 Cal. 426, 37 bree v. S., 52 Ga. 242, 1 Am. C. R. Pac. 379; Hambree v. S., 52 Ga. 242; 504; S. v. Cunningham, 66 Iowa 94» S. V. Flagg, 25 Ind. 243; U. S. v. 23 N. W. 280, 6 Am. C. R. 555; Mc- Pettus, 84 Fed. 791; S. v. Bla, 91 Murtry v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 521 43 Me. 309, 39 Atl. 1001; Dorrs v. S. S. W. 1010; 3 Greenl. Bv, § 189- 2 (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 311; P. v. De McClain Cr. L., 878. See Butler v Carlo, 124 Cal. 462, 57 Pac. 383; S., 33 Tex. Cr. 551, 28 S. W. 465 Thompson v. P., 26 Colo. 496, 59 H.17GHES' C. L. — 27 418 hughes' criminal law. § 1627 § 1627. Materiality of former testimony. — It is sufiBcient to allege generally in the indictment that the former matter or proceedings on which perjury is charged. became material.^" ^ 1628, Charging material matter.— An indictment charging that it became and was a material question on the trial of a charge of embezzlement against a certain person, naming him (before the grand jury), whether the defendant had deposited a certain sum of money with the person so named, sufficiently states the materiality of the matter.^^ An indictment alleging that it then and there became ma- terial to know whether a certain photograph was the photograph of the woman who represented herself to the accused as a certain person, and charging that the defendant feloniously and falsely swore it was not, sufficiently sets out the materiality of the false testimony."' § 1629. Indictment defective — ^Eelating to election. — ^An indict- ment charging a person with perjury in taking an oath as judge of a certain election, by swearing that he was not interested in any bet on the result of such election, when in fact he "was interested in a •certain bet and wager on the result of said election by him theretofore made," is defective in that it does not aver when, where, or with whom the defendant made the wager.^* § 1630. Matter in writing sworn to — ^Affidavit. — ^An indictment charging the defendant with having committed the crime of perjury ■"by falsely swearing to material matter in a writing signed by him," ■without mentioning the character or purpose of the writing nor what the matter falsely sworn to was, is not sufficient."' An iadiet- ment based on an affidavit alleged to be false must set out the particu- lar portion of the affidavit claimed to be false. It is not sufBcient to allege generally that the affidavit is f also.*" ^^ Greene v. P., 182 111. 278, 284, 55 " P. v. Von Tledeman, 120 Cal. N. E. 341; Klmmel v. P., 92 111. 460; 128, 52 Pac. 155; King v. S., 103 Ga. Thompson v. P., 26 Colo. 496, 59 263, 30 S. B. 30; Shaffer v. S., 87 Pac. 51; Com. v. McCarty, 152 Mass. Md. 124, 39 Atl. 313; Rich v. U. S., 577, 26 N. E. 140; S. v. Gonsoulin, 1 Okla. 354, 33 Pac. 804. 42 La. 579, 7 So. 633; Cutler v. Ter., ^ S. v. Roberts, 22 Wash. 1, 60 8 Okla. 101, 56 Pac. 861; S. v. Thrift, Pac. 65. 30 Ind. 211; Sisk v. S., 28 Tex. App. ™ S. v. Mace, 76 Me. 64, 5 Am. 432, 13 S. W. 647. C. R. 76. See Ford v. Com., 16 Ky. "Kimmel v. P., 92 111. 460; S. v. L. 528, 29 S. W. 446; Harrison v. Davis, 69 N. C. 495; S. v. Hopper, S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 863. 133 Ind. 460, 32 N. B. 878; Lea v. "Harrison v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. ,S., 64 Miss. 278, 1 So. 235. W. 863; Ross v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 349, i 1631 PERJURY. 419 § 1631. Matters in affidavit. — Under a statute which requires the parties to a chattel mortgage to make an affidavit that the mortgage is made only to secure a debt specified, Justly due from the mortgagor io the mortgagee, an indictment charging perjury in swearing falsely in such affidavit, must describe the debt and charge that the defendant swore falsely in stating, that it was a just debt owing from the mort- gagor to the mortgagee, and that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of the debt.'^^ § 1632. Based on affidavit for continuance. — In an indictment charging perjury based on an affidavit for a continuance in a criminal cause, it is not necessary to set out the indictment in the former cause."^ § 1633. Immaterial assignments. — The fact that some of the state- ments on which perjury is assigned may not be material will not viti- ate the indictment. It is sufficient if any one assignment be ma- terial.'^ § 1634. Form of oath not essential. — An indictment for perjury is not required to set forth the form of the oath taken by the defend- ant. It is sufficient to allege that he was duly sworn.** And even where the statute prescribes a form of the oath to be taken, a departure in form but not in substance is not material.'^ §1635. "Feloniously;" "willfully;" "knowingly;" "falsely."— An indictment failing to allege that the act constituting the crime was feloniously committed is bad.** An indictment is defective in not alleging that the false testimony was willfully given by the witness; 50 S. W. 336. See Braeutlgam v. 431. See Johnson v. S., 76 Ga. 790; S., 63 N. J. L. 38, 42 Atl. 748. U. S. v. Mallard, 40 Fed. 151; Dodge "S. V. Estabrooks, 70 Vt. 412, 41 v. S., 24 N. J. L. 455; Campbell v. Atl. 499. See S. v. Collins, 62 Vt. P., 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 636; Jackson 195, 19 Atl. 368; S. v. Floto, 81 Md. v. S., 15 Tex. App. 579; Greene v. 600, 32 Atl. 315; Ex parte Carpenter, P., 182 111. 283, 55 N. E. 341. 64 Cal. 267, 30 Pac. 816. ""Johnson v. S., 76 Ga. 790; S. v. ""Ross V. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 349, 50 Keene, 26 Me. 33; S. v. Dayton, 23 S. W. 336. N. J. L. 49, 53 Am. D. 270; S. v. == Jefferson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 49 S. Owen, 72 N. C. 605; S. v. Neal, 42 W. 88; Dorrs v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. Mo. 119. "W. 311; S. V. Williams, 61 Kan. 739, <» S. v. Shaw, 117 N. C. 764, 23 60 Pac. 1050. S. E. 246; S. v. Bunting, 118 N. C. « Beach v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 240, 22 1200, 24 S. E. 118. Contra. S v S. W. 976; Tuttle v. P., 36 N. Y. Matlock, 48 La. 663, 19 So. 669. 420 hughes' criminal law. § 1636 but the omission of the word "knowingly" will not render the indict- ment defective, where it charges that the testimony was willfully and corruptly false."' An indictment alleging that the defendant did "unlawfully and feloniously" swear falsely, is defective, the words of the statute defining the offense being "willfully and knowingly."" 'An indictment charging that the defendant "did feloniously, willfully, and corruptly depose, swear, and testify" is not sufficient, in that it omits to aver that he testified falsely.** § 1636. Alternative averment. — An indictment alleging that it be- came a material inquiry whether the accused had not seen a certain third person exhibit or keep a "gaming table or bank for the purpose of gaming" is bad as being in the alternative.'^'' § 1637. Authority to svsrear. — An indictment alleging that the de- fendant was sworn by the deputy clerk of the court (naming hira) is sufficient allegation that the deputy clerk had power to administer the oath, without an express averment that he had such power.'^ Charg- ing in one count that the oath was administered by the judge, the clerk and the deputy clerk, naming them, is bad. The proper course is to allege the matter in different counts, stating one of the persons in each count.''* § 1638. Authority to administer. — It was alleged in the indictment that the accused and two others (naming them) were duly elected listers at the annual meeting. It was not alleged that the two others ever qualified or acted as such. Held defective. If a town choose but one lister, it is evident that he alone has no authority to act, or take jurisdiction of the matters properly coming before the board of listers. His acts would be void, and being so he could not commit perjury.''^ "P. V. Turner, 122 Cal. 679, 55 "Fitch v. Com., 92 Va. 824, 24 Pac. 685; S. v. Morse, 90 Mo. 91, 2 S. E. 272; Reg. v. Oxley, 3 C. & K. S. W. 137; Johnson v. P., 94 111. 317. Contra, S. v. Anderson, 103 510; P. v. Ross, 103 Cal. 425, 37 Ind. 170, 2 N. E. 332. Pac. 379; U. S. v. Pettus, 84 Fed. '"Fry v. S., 36 Tex. Or. 582, 37 791; Ferguson v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 60, S. W. 741, 38 S. W. 168. 35 S. W. 369; U. S. v. Edwards, 43 "Masterson v. S., 144 Ind. 240, 43 Fed. 67; S. v. Davis, 84 N. C. 787; N. E. 138. Allen V. S., 42 Tex. 12. '" Hitesman v. S., 48 Ind. 473; S. •" Com. V. Taylor, 96 Ky. 394, 16 v. Oppenhelmer, 41 Tex. 82. Ky. L. 482, 29 S. W. 138. Contra, " S. v. Peters, 57 Vt. 86, 5 Am. C. Williams v. P., 26 Colo. 272, 57 Pac. R. 591. 701. § 1639 PEKJUEY. 421 § 1639. By whom sworn : authority. — An. indictment -which omits tp aver before whom the affidavit, upon which perjury is assigned, was made is defective, and should be quashed.''* If the indictment aver that the person who administered the oath had lawful authority to do so, that is sufficient, without further allegation, as to that fact.'"' The court will take judicial notice that the officer administering the oath was authorized to administer it.^' § 1640. Facts must be negatived. — An indictment after setting out several different statements of fact, on which perjury is assigned, then alleging generally that such facts were false, is not sufficient. It should by special averments negative each of the facts alleged to have been false, or in some manner state wherein they were false. ''^ § 1641. Stating the falsity. — Where the issue was whether the de^ fendant, on a charge of perjury, had seen a game of cards played at a certain time and place, the indictment must allege not only that the testimony of the defendant was false, but also that he did see the game of cards played at that particular time and place.''^ § 1642. Intent essential. — ^Under a statute which provides that a deposition shall be deemed complete as a basis for perjury, when "it is delivered by the accused to any other person with intent that it be littered or published as true," an indictment charging that the accused made a false affidavit, without alleging that he delivered it to some person with the intent to utter or publish it as true, is materially defective.'" "Kerr v. P., 42 111. 308; Morrell N. W. 223; S. v. Ela, 91 Me. 309, 39 v. P., 32 111. 500. Compare S. v. Atl. 1001; Com. v. Compton, 18 Ky. Scott, 78 Minn. 311, 81 N. W. 3. L. 479, 36 S. W. 1116; Ter. v. Lock- '= Maynard v. P., 135 111. 426, 25 hart, 8 N. M. 523, 45 Pae. 1106. See N. B. 740; Cope v. Com., 20 Ky. L. S. v. Sutton, 147 Ind. 158, 46 N. E. 721, 47 S. W. 436; S. v. Cunning- 468; U. S. v. Pettus, 84 Fed. 791; ham, 66 Iowa 97, 23 N. W. 280; Ja- Johnson v. S., 76 Ga. 790; P. v. cohs V. S., 61 Ala. 448, 4 Am. C. R. Clements, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 353. 468; Com. V. Butland, 119 Mass. 320; ™ Com. v. Still, 83 Ky. 275. See S. v. Belew, 79 Mo. 584; Halleck v. Stefani v. S., 124 Ind. 3, 24 N. B. S., 11 Ohio 400; S. v. Chamberlin, 254; S. v. Scott, 78 Minn. 311, 81 30 Vt. 559; Markham v. U. S., 160 N. W. 3. See also McMurtry v. S., U. S. 319, 16 S. Ct. 288; S. v. Plum- 38 Tex. Cr. 581, 43 S. W. 1010; Hig- mer, 50 Me. 217. gins v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 539, 43 S. W. "U. S. V. Lehman, 39 Fed. 49; S. 1012; King v. S., 103 Ga. 263, 30 V. Thibodaux, 49 La. 15, 21 So. 127. S. B. 30. See Greene v. P., 182 111. 278, 55 "P. v. Robles, 117 Gal. 681, 49 -N. E. 341. Pac. 1042, "S. v. Nelson, 74 Minn. 409, 77 422 hughes' criminal law. § 164S § 1643. Affidavit for continuance.^Where perjury is charged in making an affidavit for a continuance, the indictment is defective in. not alleging that a motion for a continuance had been made and that the affidavit was material on such application.*" § 1644. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment which shows the court in which the proceedings were had and the materiality of the testimony on which perjury is charged is sufficient; and it need not allege that the defendant entered a plea of not guilty.*^ § 1645. Summary conclusion. — It is not necessary under the stat- ute that the indictment should conclude with the averment, to wit: And so the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say that the defendant did commit willful and corrupt perjury.*^ § 1646. Charging subornation. — It is well established that to con- stitute the crime of subornation of perjury all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury must be stated in the indictment.*' § 1647. Knowledge essential. — Guilty knowledge on the part of the suborner is a necessary element in the crime of subornation of perjury, and must be averred in the indictment and proved on the trial. It is not enough to aver and prove that he had knowledge of the falsity of the testimony which the suborned witness was to give: he must also have known or intended that the witness was to give the testimony corruptly or with a knowledge or belief of its falsity.** § 1648. Charging subornation — Sufficient. — An information for subornation, of perjury alleging that the defendant did unlawfully, willfully, corruptly, and feloniously persuade, incite, procure, and suborn the willful and corrupt perjury charged, is sufficient, without stating that the perjury was committed by reason of the persuasion,, procurement, and subornation of the defendant.*^ On a charge of «> Morrell v. P., 32 111. 501. B. 668, 7 Am. R. 324. See S. v. "Adellberger v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 39 Porter, 105 Iowa 677, 75 N. W. 519; S. W. 103; Montgomery v. S. (Tex. U. S. v. Evans, 2 West Coast R. 611. Cr.), 40 S. W. 805. « Stewart v. S., 22 Ohio St. 477, '"Henderson v. P., 117 111. 268, 7 1 Green C. R. 529. See P. v. Ross, N. E. 677; U. S. v. Wood, 44 Fed. 103 Cal. 425, 37 Pac. 379. 753. s» S. V. Gear, 48 Kan. 752, 30 Pac " P. V. Ross, 103 Cal. 426, 37 Pac. 236. 379; Coyne v. P., 124 111. 17, 14 N. § 1649 PERJURY. 42i subornation of perjury, the indictment alleged that a person, naming her, willfully and corruptly testified that she did not do certain acti that were set out, whereas she then and there well knew that she did d( the acts alleged, and that the defendant did feloniously and maliciously incite her to commit perjury in manner and form aforesaid: Hel( sufficient. The words feloniously and maliciously import that the de fendant knowingly procured the perjury.^^ § 1649. Subornation — ^Indictment defective. — ^An informatioi charging subornation of perjury which fails to state that the fals( affidavit or testimony of the suborned witness was used or procured t( be used in some case or proceeding before some court or body having jurisdiction, is fatally defective.*^ Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1650. Two witnesses not essential. — If any material circum stance be proved by other witnesses in confirmation of the witnesi who gave the direct testimony of the perjury, it may turn the scaL and warrant a conviction. The old rule requiring two witnesses hai long since been relaxed.^* Where several witnesses testify that thi defendant admitted to them that the affidavit made by him was ifalse this does not constitute proof by two witnesses.*' Where the indict ment contains several assignments of perjury, a conviction can not bi had on the direct evidence of a living witness to the falsity of one with circumstantial evidence of the falsity of another. The evidenci of the witness and the evidence of the circumstances must both bea; upon the falsity of the same statement of fact.'" »=Coin. v. Devine, 155 Mass. 224, iams v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 493; P. \ 29 N. B. 515. See Stewart v. S., 22 Stone, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 41; Crusen -v Ohio St. 477; S. v. Porter, 105 Iowa S., 10 Ohio St. 258; Peterson v. S 677, 75 N. W. 519. 74 Ala. 34; S. v. Miller, 24 W. Va ^ S. V. Geer, 46 Kan. 529, 26 Pac. 802; McDermott v. S., 89 Ind. 192 1027; Smith v. S., 125 Ind. 440, 25 S. v. Dickson, 6 Kan. 211; U. S. m N. E. 598. Hall, 44 Fed. 864. See S. v. Buci ^'Mackin v. P., 115 111. 329, 3 N. E. ley, 18 Or. 228, 22 Pac. 838; Rex -v 222; Pollard v. P., 69 111. 153; Mayhew, 6 C. & P. 315; S. v. Wad Schwartz v. Com., 27 Gratt. (Va.) die, 100 Iowa 57, 69 N. W. 279 1025, 2 Am. C. R. 412; S. v. Heed, Com. v. Pollard, 12 Mete. (Mass. 57 Mo. 252, 1 Am. C. R. 502; S. v. 225; Haines v. S., 109 Ga. 526, 3l Gibbs, 10 Mont 213, 25 Pac. 289; S. E. 141; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 46S Ter. V. Williams, 9 N. M. 400, 54 ^Butler v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W Pac. 232; S. v. Peters, 107 N. C. 876, 46; Rogers v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 221 12 S. B. 74; Grandison v. S., 29 32 S. W. 1044. Tex. App. 186, 15 S. W. 174; Will- ■"• Underbill Cr. Bv., § 468, citin; 424 hughes' criminal law. § 1651 § 1651. Two contradictory statements. — If the evidence in proof of the crime of perjury consists of two opposing statements of the accused and nothing more, he can not be convicted, there being nothing to show which of the two statements is f alse.°^ § 1652. Material and immaterial averments. — Where the indict ment charges immaterial as well as material matters alleged to be perjury, evidence of the immaterial matters is competent, where, if true, it conclusively shows that the false testimony on the material matters was given willfully, and not by mistake.'^ § 1653. Files competent ; record and proceedings. — The files of the case in which perjury is charged to have been committed are competent to show the pendency and regularity of that case.'' The record of such pending suit is the only legal proof thereof.'* If the charge of perjury is based on evidence given on the trial of a cause, in addition to the production of the record, the previous evidence and state of the cause should be proven, or at least so much of it as shows that the matter sworn to was material to the issue or point in ques- tion.»= § 1654. Stenographer's notes. — It is proper to permit a stenog- rapher who took the testimony of the defendant in the case in which perjury is charged to have been committed to read from his notes, when he swears that he can give such testimony just as the defendant gave it in court."" And the stenographer may read his notes in order to show the materiality of the testimony of the defendant.'' § 1655. Jurat of officer. — The jurat of the officer attached to a deposition or affidavit is sufficient prima facie proof of the taking of Keg. v. Virrier, 12 A. & E. 317; Will- N. W. 968; Martinez v. S., 39 Tex. iams V. Com., 91 Pa. St. 493, 501; Cr. 479, 46 S. W. 826; Smith v. S., Harris v. P., 64 N. Y. 148; Adellber- 103 Ala. 57, 15 So. 866. ger V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 39 S. W. 103. "Heflin v. S., 88 Ga. 151, 14 S. B. "1 Greenl. Ev., § 259; Schwartz 112. V. Com., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 1025, 2 °= Young v. P., 134 111. 42, 24 N. B. Am. C. R. 414; S. v. Buckley, 18 1070. See Martinez v. S., 39 Tex. Or. 228, 22 Pac. 838; Freeman v. Cr. 479, 46 S. W. 826; 3 Starkie Bv., S., 19 Fla. 552, 4 Am. C. R. 472. 1142. Contra, Whitaker v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. ™ P. v. Macard, 109 Mich. 623, 67 479, 36 S. W. 253. N. W. 968. "^Jefferson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 S. " S. v. Camley, 67 Vt. 322, 31 Atl. "W. 1090. See P. v. Ah Sing, 95 Cal. 840. See S. v. Gibhs, 10 Mont. 213, 657, 30 Pac. 796. 25 Pac. 289 (parol evidence). "P. v. Macard, 109 Mich. 623, 67 § 1656 PERJURY. 425 the oath by the person charged with perjury, and the place where the oath was taken is also shown by the jurat.'* § 1656. Other violations incompetent. — Where the issue is whether the defendant on a charge of perjury had purchased liquor from a certain person or not, evidence that others than the defendant had so purchased and that such person had been convicted of selling liquor, is incompetent.'® § 1657. Hearsay incompetent. — On the trial of a case in which the issue was whether the defendant committed perjury in swearing that an assault was not committed by a certain person, evidence of the flight of such person after the assault and his admission of guilt, made in the absence of the defendant, is incompetent.^"" § 1658. Judge's remarks — ^Hearsay. — Permitting the prosecution to show on the trial of one charged with perjury that on the former trial, in which the perjury is charged to have been committed, the judge presiding said "in his opinion the man had been guilty of per- jury," was error.^ § 1659. Conversations — Declarations. — Evidence of any conversa- tions or declarations at the time of making an affidavit or the giving of testimony on which perjury is charged, is competent as part of the res gestae and to show that the affidavit or testimony was false or that it was given by mistake and not intended.^ § 1660. Circumstantial evidence sufficient. — The falsity of the statement upon which perjury is assigned may be established by cir- cumstantial evidence if it convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that such statement is f alse.^ =»Rex V. Spencer, 1 C. & P. 260; E. 677; Com. v. Monahan, 9 Gray Van Dusen v. P., 78 111. 645. (Mass.) 119. " Hemphill v. S., 71 Miss. 877, 16 " P. v. Porter, 104 Cal. 415, 38 So. 261. Pac. 88; Gandy v. S., 23 Neb. 436, ""Reavis v. S., 6 Wyo. 240, 44 36 N. W. 817; Sloan v. S., 71 Miss. Pac. 62. 459, 14 So. 262; Plummer v. S., 35 »P. V. Gibson, 48 N. Y. Supp. 861, Tex. Cr. 202, 33 S. W. 228; P. v. 24 App. Div. 12. Strassman, 112 Cal. 683, 45 Pac. 3. ^ Heflin v. S., 88 Ga. 151, 14 S. The evidence in the following cases E. 112; Spencer v. Com., 15 Ky. L. was held sufficient to sustain con- 182, 22 S. W. 559. See S. v. Gibbs, victions: Roberts v. P., 99 111. 276; 10 Mont. 212, 25 Pac. 289. See also P. v. Maxwell, 118 Cal. 50, 50 Pac Henderson v. P., 117 111. 268, 7 N. 18; Bledsoe v. S., 64 Ark. 474 42 426 hughes' criminal law. § 1661 § 16G1, Variance — Judge or clerk, — ^An indictment charging that the oath was administered to the accused by the judge is supported by proof that he was sworn by the clerk of the court under the direc- tion of the judge presiding.* But where the indictment alleges that the defendant was sworn by the clerk of the county and the proof shows that he was sworn by the clerk of a city court, it is a fatal vari- § 1662. Variance as to time. — ^An indictment charged that the defendant testified and swore that he saw a certain person named, ■'about fifteen minutes after the hour of eleven o'clock in the fore- Qoon" of a particular day, and the proof was that he had seen the person mentioned "about a quarter past eleven o'clock" on the day alleged, without stating whether in the forenoon or afternoon : Held ambiguous and not sufficient." § 1663. Several assignments. — "If there are several distinct assign- ments of perjury upon the same testimony, in one indictment, it will be sufficient if any one of them be proved."'' § 1664. Variance as to amount. — The indictment charged the defendant with swearing falsely that he had 60,000 cigars in the S. W. 899; Carter v. S. (Tex. Cr.), Wilkerson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. 43 S. W. 996; Butler v. S., 36 Tex. W. 49. Cr. 444, 37 S. W. 746; P. v. Porter, *P. v. Nolte, 44 N. Y. Supp. 443, 104 Cal. 415, 38 Pac. 88; P. v. Wells, 19 Misc. 674; Staight v. S., 39 103 Cal. 631, 37 Pac. 529; Meeks v. Ohio St. 498. See Walker v. S., S., 32 Tex. Cr. 420, 24 S. W. 98; 107 Ala. 5, 18 So. 393; S. v. Cay- Maul v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 26 S. W. 199; wood, 96 Iowa 367, 65 N. W. 385; Rich V. U. S., 1 Okla. 354, 33 Pac. Rowland v. Thompson, 65 N. C. 110; 804; P. V. Rodley (Cal., 1900), 63 Oaks v. Rodgers, 48 Cal. 197; S. v. Pac. 351. But not sufficient in the Knight, 84 N. C. 793. following: Franklin v. S., 38 Tex. "McClerkin v. S., 105 Ala. 107. Cr. 346, 43 S. W. 85; Martinez v. S., 17 So. 123; Cutler v. Ter., 8 Okla. 39 Tex. Cr. 479, 46 S. W. 826; Lomax 101, 56 Pac. 861. V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 999; S. v. «Reg. v. Bird, 17 Cox C. C. 387. Hawkins, 115 N. C. 712, 20 S. E. '3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 193; 623; Hemphill v. S., 71 Miss. 877, 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev., 84, 126; S. v. 16 So. 261; Mason v. S., 55 Ark. Blaisdell, 59 N. H. 328; Com. v. 529, 18 S. W. 827; Cronk v. P., 131 Johns, 6 Gray (Mass.) 274; Harris 111. 56, 22 N. E. 862; U. S. v. Brown, v. P., 64 N. Y. 148; S. v. Day, 100 6 Utah 115, 21 Pac. 461; Wohlge- Mo. 242, 12 S. W. 365; Smith v. S., muth V. U. S., 6 N. M. 568, 30 Pac. 103 Ala. 57, 15 So. 866; Moore v. 854; Gabe v. S. (Tex. App.), 18 S. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 405, 24 S. W. 95; W. 413; Kitcken v. S., 29 Tex. App. Marvin v. S., 53 Ark. 395, 14 S. W. 45, 14 S. W. 392; Brooks v. S., 29 87; Com. v. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. Tex. App. 582, 16 S. W. 542; Cerns 449; S. v. Bordeaux, 93 N. C. 560; V. Ter., 3 Wyo. 270, 21 Pac. 699; Wood v. P., 59 N. Y. 117. § 1665 PERJURY. 427 building which was burned, when in fact he swore that he had 65,000 there — a mistake in his favor : Held no variance.* § 1665. Variance— Larceny or robbery. — An indictment charging perjury by swearing falsely -as surety on a bail bond of a person held on a charge of larceny is not supported by evidence that such person was arrested and held on a charge of robbery.® § 1666. Variance as to date. — A variance between the proof and the allegations, as to the date of the offense, is not material where the perjury charged is not based on any written document or record.^" § 1667. How officer elected immaterial. — Whether the officer be- fore whom perjury is alleged to have been committed was elected or appointed is not material. And a variance between the allegations and proof in that respect is not material.^^ § 1668. Venue. — It must appear that the oath was taken in the county where the indictment was found, but the jurat of the officer, though prima facie evidence of the place, is not conclusive, and may be contradicted.^^ The venue is sufficiently proven by the caption of the affidavit, to wit: "State of Illinois, Carroll County." This clearly manifests the place where the oath was administered.^* § 1669. Jurisdiction : State or federal court. — Perjury committed in the state courts in proceedings for naturalization, in violation of a federal statute, may be prosecuted in the state court.^° = Harris v. P., 64 N. Y. 148, 2 Am. \"3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 195, 196. C. R. 420, citing P. v. "Warner, 5 "Van Dusen v. P., 78 111. 646. Wend. (N. Y.) 271. " S. v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245, "P. V. Strassman, 112 Cal. 683, 45 9 Am. D. 196; Rump v. Com., 30 Pac. 3. Pa. St. 475. Contra, P. v. Sweetman, "Matthews v. U. S., 161 U. S. 500, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 358. See P. v. 16 S. Ct. 640. See Dill v. P., 19 Kelly, 38 Cal. 145; S. v. Adams, 4 Colo. 469, 36 Pac. 229. Blackf. (Ind.) 147; Ex parte '^ S. v. Williams, 60 Kan. 837, 58 Bridges, 2 Wood (U. S.) 428. Pac. 476. CHAPTER XXXIX. CONTEMPT. Art. I. Power of Courts to Punish, §§ 1670-1672 II. Two Classes— Criminal and Civil, . . §§ 1673-1677 III. Definitions and Illustrations, ....§§ 1678-1703 IV. Defenses to Contempt, §§ 1704-1726 V. Entitling the Cause, §§ 1727-1733 VI. Complaint or Affidavit, §§ 1734^1742 VII. Application for Rule, §§ 1743-1748 VIII. Issuing Attachment Process, ....§§ 1749-1753 IX. Evidence; Trial, §§ 1754-1766 X. Sentence; Judgment, §§ 1767-17«9 •XI. Punishment; Penalty, §§ 1790-1795 XII. Appeal; Writ of Error, §§ 1796-1804 Article I. Pother of Courts to Punish. § 1670. Common law origin. — Statutory provisions empowerlDg courts of record to punish contempts do not create a new power, but re-affirm a pre-existing power; and the courts will still look to the common law as to what constitutes a contempt of court.^ The power to commit for contempt has always existed in the higher courts and is part of the law of the land within the meaning of Magna Charta, and of our Declaration of Rights.^ >P. V. Wilson, 64 111. 195, 16 Am. 4 Bl. Com. 286; Underbill Or. Bv., H. 528; Whlttem v. S., 36 Ind. 196- § 459. 212; Middlebrook v. S., 43 Conn. = Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 118, 257, 21 Am. R. 650; S. v. Morrill, 16 120; S. v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 453; Ark. 384; Hale v. S., 55 Ohio St. Shattuck v. S., 51 Miss. 50; P. v. 210, 45 N. E. 199, 36 L. R. A. 252; Wilson, 64 111. 195; Morrison v. Mc- Nebraska Children's Home Sec. v. Donald, 21 Me. 550; Wilson's Case, S., 57 Neb. 765, 78 N. W. 267; S. v. 7 Q. B. 984; Ex parte Smith, 28 Frew, 24 W. Va. 416, 4 Am. R. 257; Ind. 47; 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 243; (428) § 1671 CONTEMPT. 429 § 1671. legislature can not abridgCi^The legislature can not abridge the power of courts to punish summarily such wrongful acts as obstruct the administration of justice. Such power exists inde- pendently in the courts and independently of legislative authority.* The authority to punish contempts is a necessary incident inherent in the very organization of all legislative bodies and of all courts of law ^nd equity, independent of statutory provision.* § 1672. Power of justice courts. — A justice of the peace, under statute, may fine a contemner not to exceed the amount fixed by stat- ute, and by common law may order a committal until the fine shall be paid.^ Where a person acting as an attorney in a ease in a justice court resisted a motion in a rude and contumacious manner, remarking to the court: "You can fine and be damned," he was guilty of con- tempt of court, and the justice was authorized . to issue a warrant directed to the sheriff for the arrest of such person.^ Aeticle II. Two Classes — Ckiminal and Civil. § 1673. Two classes of contempt. — Contempts are of two classes, criminal and civil. In the criminal class, the object of the proceed- ing is punishment of the wrong-doer, to vindicate and prese-rve the dignity and respect for the public authority and public interest; in the other class, to afford relief inter partes — for the benefit of a pri- vate litigant.'' P. v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 209, 48 Pac. U. S. 168; Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 75; P. V. Stapleton, 18 Colo. 569, 33 Gray (Mass.) 226, 74 Am. D. 676; Pac. 167; In re Milllngton, ?4 Kan. Howard v. Gosset, 10 Q. B. (59 B. C. 214; Baldwin v. S., 126 Ind. 31, 25 L.) 359; Ex parte Dalton, 44 Ohio N. E. 820; Arnold v. Com., 80 Ky. St. 143, 58 Am. R. 800, 5 N. E. 136; 300, 44 Am. R. 480; In re Cooper, Ex parte Lawrence, 116 Cal. 298, 48 32 Vt. 253. Pac. 124; Clark v. P., Breese (111.) 'Hale V. S., 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 340; S. v. Knight, 3 S. D. 509, 54 N. B. 199, 36 L. A. R. 254 (citing S. N. "W. 412, 9 Am. C. R. 223; U. S. v. V. Frew, 24 W. Va. 416; Little v. S., Church, etc., 6 Utah 9, 21 Pac. 503, 90 Ind. 338, 46 Am. R. 224; S. v. 524, 8 Am. C. R. 141; P. v. Pirfen- Morrill, 16 Ark. 384; S. v. Matthews, brink, 96 111. 68; Ex parte Robinson, 37 N. H. 450; Cartwright's Case, 114 19 Wall. (U. S.) 505; Cossart v. S., Mass. 230); Hawes v. S., 46 Neb. 14 Ark. 541. 150, 64 N. W. 699; Cheadle v. S., = Brown v. P.. 19 111. 612; Newton 110 Ind. 301, 59 Am. R. 199, 11 N. v. Locklin, 77 111. 104; Coleman -v. E. 426; In re Chadwick, 109 Mich. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449; 588, 67 N. W. 1071. In re Cooper, 32 Vt. 253; S. v. Copp, *S. V. Matthews, 37 N. H. 453; 15 N. H. 212. See 2 Blsh. New Cr. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheaton 204; L., § 244. U. S. V. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; Ex "Hill v. Crandall, 52 111. 70. See parte Adams, 25 Miss. 883; Emery's 2 Bish. New Cr. L., §§ 263, 266. Case, 107 Mass. 172; Reer. v. Paty, 2 ' P. v. Diedrich, 141 111. 665, 30 Salk. 503; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 N. B. 1038; Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 430 hughes' criminal law. § 1674 § 1674. Civil contempt — Object. — In civil contempt the proceed- ings are instituted by a private litigant against the adverse party for his sole benefit, and the fine imposed is for the purpose of compensat- ing him for damages sustained by reason of the act done charged as a Tcontempt.* § 1675. Direct and constructive. — Contempts are either direct, such as are offered in the presence of the court while in session, or constructive, being offered out of the presence of the court, but tending to obstruct, embarrass, or prevent the due administration of justice." § 1676. Out of presence of court. — Contemptuous acts of lawyers at a meeting held in a room in the court-house, when court was not in session, and to which meeting they invited the judge of the court, can not be regarded as in the presence of the court.^" § 1677. Strict construction. — In a prosecution for criminal con- tempt the rules of strict construction are the same as in other criminal causes, and in such case no presumption will be indulged in against the accused to sustain a conviction.^^ Article III. Definitions and Illusteations. § 1678. What constitutes contempt. — ^Any conduct which is calcu- lated to interfere with the proceedings of the court, by assaulting wit- 23 N. E. 387, 37 N. E. 1004; Phil- Y.) 154, 28 N. Y. Supp. 981; Poert- Ups v. Welch, 11 Nev. 187; Beck v. ner v. Russel, 33 Wis. 194; S. v. S., 72 Ind. 250; Buck v. Buck, 60 Knight, 3 S. D. 509, 54 N. W. 412, 111. 105; Ex parte BoUig, 31 111. 56; 44 Am. R. 809. This rule seems to Crook V. P., 16 111. 534; P. v. Court have originated from construction of Oyer and Terminer, 101 N. Y. 245, of statutory provisions. 6 Am. C. R. 165, 4 N. E. 259; S. v. "Stuart v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 404; Knight, 3 S. D. 509, 54 N. W. 412, 44 Holman v. S., 105 Ind. 513, 5 N. B. Am. R. 809; Thompson v. Pennsyl- 556; Baker v. S., 82 Ga. 776, 9 S. E. vania R. Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 105, 21 Atl. 743, 14 Am. R. 192; P. v. "Wilson, 64 182; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. City 111. 214, 1 Am. C. R. 108; 4 Bl. Com. of Wheeling, 13 Graft. (Va.) 57; 284; 5 Cr. L. Mag. 173; In re Dill, Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. 63, 19 32 Kan. 668, 49 Am. R. 505, 5 Pac. Blatchf. (U. S.) 13; 2 Bish. Cr. L. 39; Underhill Cr. Ev., §§ 460, 461. (8th ed.), § 248; Howard v. Durand, For a digest of many cases on con- 36 Ga. 358. tempt in the presence and out of *P. V. Court of Oyer and Ter- the presence of the court, see note miner, 101 N. Y. 245, 54 Am. R. to U. S. v. Church, 8 Am. C. H. 691, 4 N. E. 259; Phillips v. Welch, 142. 11 Nev. 187; Wells v. Oregon R., " Snyder v. S., 151 Ind. 553, 52 N. etc., Co., 19 Fed. 20, 9 Sawy. 601; E. 152. Chapel V. Hull, 60 Mich. 167, 26 N. " Hydock v. S., 59 Neh. 297, 80 N. W. 874; P. V. McKane, 78 Hun (N. W. 902. § 1679 CONTEMPT. 431 messes or litigants within the precincts of the court, or preventing or hindering or endeavoring to prevent or hinder them in their access to the court, or otherwise, is a contempt.^^ Where the conduct of a person is such as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect, or to interfere with or prejudice parties liti- gant or their witnesses during the litigation, he is guilty of con- tempt.^* § 1679. Demand, an element. — Where the court enters an order, requiring the payment of alimony, a demand for the payment is neces- sary as a foundation for contempt proceedings, unless the party de- clines to pay before demand is made.^* And so, also, in other eases, where money is ordered to be paid or property delivered, a previous demand is necessary before contempt proceedings can be maintained.^" Where a statute provides that if money be not paid within thirty days after order of the court, after demand has been made, the demand is an essential element of the case to constitute contempt.^^ § 1680. Arresting litigants or witnesses. — Arresting parties to a cause, or witnesses while in attendance at court on a trial, or while going to and from court on such trial, is a contempt of court.^^ The arrest, in the actual or constructive presence of the coiirt, of a party or witness who, by reason of attendance thereon, is exempt from arrest, is a contempt.^' § 1681. Interfering with officer. — Any unauthorized interference with property in the hands of a receiver, either by taking forcible pos- session or by legal proceedings without the sanction of the court appointing such receiver, is a direct and immediate contempt of court, and punishable by attachment.^' Property in the hands of a receiver "Dahnke v. P., 168 111. 107, 48 N. "Haines v. P., 97 111. 178; Blake B. 137, citing Oswald, Contempts of v. P., 161 111. 75, 43 N. E. 590. Court; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 459. "Wood v. Neale, 5 Gray (Mass.) "Dahnke v. P., 168 111. 107, 48 538; May v. Shumway, 16 Gray N. E. 137. (Mass.) 86, 77 Am. D. 401; S. v. "Potts V. Potts, 68 Mich. 492, 36 Buck, 62 N. H. 670; Ex parte Mc- N. "W. 240; Edison v. Edison, 56 Neil, 6 Mass. 245. See Thompson's Mich. 185, 22 N. W. 264; Park v. Case, 122 Mass. 428, 23 Am. R. 370. Park, 80 N. Y. 156. " 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 252, citing >" Haines v. P., 97 111. 162; Pan- Blight v. Fisher, Peters C. C. 41; ton V. Zebley, 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Rex y. Hall, 2 "W. Bl. 1110. 394; Gray v. Cook, 24 How. Pr. (N. "Richards v. P., 81 111. 554; Knott Y.) 432; McComb v. Weaver, 11 Hun v. P., 83 111. 532; Noe v. Gibson, 7 (N. Y.) 271; Matter of Ockershau- Paige (N. Y.) 513; Greene v. Odell, sen, 59 Hun 200, 13 N, Y. Supp. 60 N. Y. Supp. 346, 43 App. Div. 396. 608; In re Christian Jensen Co., 128 432 hughes' criminal saw. § 1682 is in the custody of the court appointing the receiver, and attaching property so held, knowing it to be in possession of such receiver, is a contempt of eourt.^" And suing a receiver without leave of the court making the appointment of the receiver is a contempt.^^ Where a sheriff, receiver, or other officer of the court has lawful possession of property by a proper writ or in his official capacity, it is in the custody of the court, and any unwarranted interference with such possession by any person is a contempt of court.^^ § 1682. Interfering with court. — If a person takes forcible posses^ sion of property after it has been taken from the defendant by a writ of replevin, aiid delivered to the plaintiff, such act is a contempt ofcourt.^^ § 1683. Violating injunction ; knowledge. — Where a writ of in- junction has been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, restraini- ing the doing or commanding the performance of certain acts desig- nated, any violation of such injunction, by the party or parties against whom it runs, is a contempt of court. ^* Wiiere a person has received knowledge of the existence of an injunction, from the time he has been informed of the existence of such order he is bound by it, whethet it be actually served on him or not.^^ And to disobey an injunction, N. Y. 550, 28 N. E. 665; Levy v. Cal. 109, 15 Pac. 359. See Williams Stanion, 53 N. Y. Supp. 472, 33 App. v. Gait, 95 111. 172; Levy v. Stanion, Div. 632; Sainberg v. "Weinberg, 54 59 N. Y. Supp. 306, 43 App. Div. N. Y. Supp. 559, 25 Misc. 327; Del- 619. ozier v. Bird, 123 N. C. 689, 31 S. E. '=P. v. Neill, 74 111. 68; 4 Bl. Com. 834. 285. ^-Holbrook v. Ford, 153 111. 633, 39 ^Hawkins v. S., 126 Ind. 294, 26 N. E. 1091, 46 Am. R. 917. N. E. 43; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, ^Com. V. Young, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 15 S. Ct. 900; S. v. Baldwin, 57 Iowa 606; Smith v. Wayne Cir. Judge, 84 266, 10 N. W. 645; Poertner v. Rus- Mich. 564, 47 N. W. 1092; Thomp- sel, 33 Wis. 193; Baker v. Cordon, son V. Scott, 4 Dill. (U. S.) 508. 86 N. C. 116, 41 Am. R. 448; Ker- Contra, Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wis. foot v. P., 51 111. App. 410; Welch 75; Allen v. R. R. Co., 42 Iowa 683. v. P., 38 111. 20; Wilcox, etc., Co. v. ^Richards V. P., 81 111. 551; SaWn Schimmel, 59 Mich. 524, 26 N. W. V. Fogarty, 70 Fed. 482; Sercomb 692; Vilas v. Burton, 27 Vt 56; P. V. Catlin, 128 111. 556, 15 Am. R. 147, v. Van Buren, 136 N. Y. 252, 32 N. 21 N. B. 606; Cartwright's Case, 114 E. 775; Commercial Bank v. Waters, Mass. 230; Com. v. Young, 11 Phila. 10 S. & M. (Miss.) 559; Forsythe v. (Pa.) 606; Hazelrigg v. Bronaugh, Winans, 44 Ohio St. 277, 7 N. B. 13; 78 Ky. 62; Noe v. Gibson, 7 Paige Johnson v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. (N. Y.) 513; Huntington v. McMa- 567, 4 Pac. 575. hon, 48 Conn. 174; Vermont R. Co. ^^ Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wis. 193, V. Vermont, etc., R. Co. 46 Vt. 792; 202; Mead v. Norris, 21 Wis. 310; Ex parte Kellogg, 64 Cal. 343, 30 Winslow v. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411{ Pac. 1030; Matter of Lowenthal, 74 P. v. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 405; § 1684 CONTEMPT. 433 after an appeal has been taken from a decree granting such injunction, is a contempt of court.^" § 1684. Disobeying court orders. — The disobedience of any order,, judgment, or decree of court having jurisdiction to issue it is a con- tempt of the court, however erroneous or improvident the issuing of it may have been ; such order is obligatory until overruled by an appellate' court. But if, in making such order, the court was without jurisdicr- tion, disobedience of the same is not a contempt. ^^ § 1685. Refusal to produce books. — ^It is no defense to a charge of contempt for refusal of a party to produce books and documents re- lating to an alleged partnership, that no interlocutpry decree finding the existence of such partnership had first been entered."* § 1686. Enforcing order. — An order of the court directing the per- son convicted of keeping and maintaining a nuisance by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to abate the same may be enforced by attachment against the defendant, if the nuisance be continued.''* § 1687. Refusing to deliver property. — The defendant in refusing to obey the order of the court in supplementary proceedings, to turn over certain notes to be sold in satisfaction of an execution, is guilty, of contempt, where it appears that the notes were under his control,, Panshawe v. Tracy, 4 Biss. (U. S.) W. 268; Devlin v. Hinman, 161 N. Y. 490, 499; Davis v. Davis, 83 Hun 115, 55 N. B. 386; S. v. Nathans, 49 (N. Y.) 500, 32 N. Y. Supp. 10; Free- S. C. 199, 27 S. E. 52; Leopold v. P., man v. City of Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 140 111. 552, 30 N. E. 348; French v. 66 N. W. 928; Howe v. Willard, 40 Commercial Nat. Bk., 79 111. App. Vt. 654; Ter. v. Clancey, 7 N. M. 110; Clark v. Burke, 163 HI. 334, 45. 580, 37 Pac. 1108; McDonnell v. Hen- N. E. 235; S. v. Harper's Ferry derson, 74 Iowa 619, 38 N. W. 512. Bridge Co., 16 W. Va. 877; Kaehler Contra, Hennessy v. Nicol, 105 Cal. v. Halpin, 59 Wis. 40, 17 N. W. 868; 138, 38 Pac. 649. S. v. Baldwin, 57 Iowa 266, 10 N. W. ™ Lindsay v. Clayton Dist. Court, 645; Stimpson v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 75 Iowa 509, 39 N. W. 817; Hunt v. 238; S. v. Markuson, 7 N. D. 155, 73' LambertvlUe, 46 N. J. L. 59; Heinlen N. W. 82; Blllard v. Erhart, 35 Kan. V. Cross, 63 Cal. 44; S. v. Dillon, 96 616, 12 Pac. 42; P. v. McKane, 7S Mo. 56, 8 S. W. 781; Hawkins v. S., Hun (N. Y.) 161, 28 N. Y. Supp. 981; 126 Ind. 294, 26 N. E. 43; Central Forrest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 16, 29' TJ. Tel. Co. V. S., 110 Ind. 203, 10 Atl. 215; P. v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 405; N. E. 922, 12 N. E. 136; San Antonio Ex parte Stickney, 40 Ala. 160. St. R. Co. V. S. (Tex. Civ.), 38 S. W. ^'Southworth v. P., 183 111. 621, 56. 54; P. V. Rice, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 437, N. E. 407. 30 N. Y. Supp. 457. " Schultz v. S., 32 Ohio St. 277, ''Jenkins v. S., 59 Neb. 68, 80 N. 281; Taggart v. Com., 21 Pa. St. 527.. hughes' c. l. — 28 434 hughes' criminal law. § 1688 though not in his hands.^" Or any other disobedience of an order of court is a contempt where the court has jurisdiction to enter it.^^ § 1688. Order to make deed. — Where the contempt consisted in dis- obeying an order requiring the party to make a deed in a suit in equity for specific performance, it was no answer that he put it out of his power to make the deed by conveying the land to a third party pen- dente lite.^^ § 1689. Void order. — Where the court makes an order without, au- thority of law, the party has the right to question the propriety of such order, and to do so he must refuse to obey it. The order being unauthorized, he has a right to disregard it.^* To refuse to obey an order to produce books and papers for inspection before trial is not a contempt of court, unless a showing is made upon good and sufiBcient cause that such books and papers contain evidence pertinent to the issue on behalf of the party applying therefor ; such an order by the court is unauthorized.'* § 1690. Violating order. — ^A writ of certiorari, when served, op- erates as a stay of all proceedings, and any proceeding in the face of its restraining order is a contempt.^' '"Eikenberry v. Edwards, 67 Iowa 300; Sherwin v. P., 100 N. T. 351, 3 619, 56 Am. R. 360, 25 N. W. 832; N. E. 465, 5 Am. C. R. 195; Brown v. Ex parte Kellogg, 64 Cal. 343, 30 Moore, 61 Cal. 432; Hogue v. Hayes, Pac. 1030; Bond v. Bond, 69 N. C. 53 Iowa 377, 5 N. W. 541; Clark v. 97; In re Mllburn, 59 Wis. 24, 17 Burke, 163 111. 337. 45 N. B. 235; N. W. 965; S. v. Burrows, 33 Kan. P. v. Donovan, 135 N. Y. 79, 31 N. E. 10, 5 Pac. 449; Lehmaler v. Gris- 1009; S. v. Blair, 39 W. Va. 704, 20 -wold, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 11; S. v. S. E. 658; Ex parte Adams, 25 Miss. Becht, 23 Minn. 411. 883, 59 Am. D. 234; Com. v. Perkins, "P. V. Salomon, 54 111. 41; O'Cal- 124 Pa. St. 36, 16 Atl. 525; Bower v. laglian v. O'Callaghan, 69 111. 552; Kidd, 23 Mich. 440; Bear v. Cohen, Knott V. P., 83 111. 532; Devlin v. 65 N. G. 611; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hinman, 57 N. Y. Supp. 663, 40 App. Wear, 135 Mo. 230, 36 S. W. 357, 658; Div. 101. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 8 S. Ct ^5 Gr. Law Mag. 180 (citing Mc- 482; Ex parte Brown, 97 Cal. 83, 31 Clung V. McGlung, 33 N. J. Eq. 462; Pac. 840; Ex parte Gardner, 22 Nev. O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 69 111. 280, 39 Pac. 570; In re Pierce, 44 552); Staples V. Staples, 87 Wis. 592, Wis. 411; McKinney v. Frankfort, 58 N. W. 1036; Tredway v. Van etc., R. Co., 140 Ind. 95, 38 N. B. 170, Wagenen, 91 Iowa 556, 60 N. W. 130; 39 N. E. 500. Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138. See " Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. B. Stuart V. Stuart, 123 Mass. 370; P. v. 387, 37 N. E. 1004; Ex parte Clarke, Pearson, 3 Scam. (111.) 282. 126 Cal. 235, 58 Pac. 546, 46 L. R. A. »= Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. E. 835. 387, 37 N. E. 1004, 41 Am. R. 375; "" S. v. Board of Public Works, 58 P. V. Weigley, 155 111. 501, 40 N. E. N. J. L. 536, 37 Atl. 578. '§ 1691 CONTEMPT. 435 § 1691. Attorney refusing to pay. — Where an attorney collects money for his client and refuses to obey an order of the court to pay it, he is guilty of contempt.'" § 1692. Slandering the judge. — A newspaper publication charging a judge with -"deliberate lying about the law, deliberate, intentional falsification in his official capacity and deliberate, intentional denial of justice," in the trial of a cause, is a contempt of court.'^ But if the libelous or slanderous publication reflecting on the judge of the court is published after a decision is rendered or after the termination of the cause to which it relates, then such publication is not a contempt. The publication must relate to some cause or matter pending and un- determined.^' § 1693. Reflecting on judge. — The defendant had been indicted on a charge of perjury for giving false testimony and the perjury case was pending for trial. In the meantime the defendant and his friends had held public meetings in various parts of the country intending to excite sympathy for his cause and to collect funds for his defense on the perjury charge. Speeches were made by the defendant and his friends of a vituperative character, reflecting upon the justice before whom the perjury cause was pending for trial, the object appearing to have been to deter the justice from sitting at the trial : Held, on complaint, to constitute a contempt of court.*^ The use of abusive and "Smith V. McLendon, 59 Ga. 523; of Sturoc, 48 N. H. 428, 97 Am. D. P. V. Wilson, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 368; 630; Burke v. Ter., 2 Okla. 499, 37 Cotton V. Sharpstein, 14 Wis. 226, Pac. 829; Matter of Shortridge, 99 80 Am. D. 774. Cal. 527, 37 Am. R. 78, 34 Pac. 227. "Ex parte Barry, 85 Cal. 603, 25 ==Ex parte Barry, 85 Cal. 603, 20 Pac. 256, 20 Am. R. 248; S. v. Bee Am. R. 248, 25 Pac. 256; S. v. Kaiser, Pub. Go. (Neb.), 83 N. W. 404, 50 20 Or. 50, 23 Pac. 964; S. v. Ander- L. R. A. 195. See also the following son, 40 Iowa 207; Storey v. P., 79 cases: P. v. Wilson, 64 111. 196, 16 111. 45, 22 Am. R. 158; Rosewater v. Am. R. 528; Tenney's Case, 23 S., 47 Neb. 630, 66 N. W. 640; P. v. N. H. 162; Bloom v. P., 23 Colo. Wilson, 64 111. 195, 16 Am. R. 528; 416, 48 Pac. 519; P. v. Stapleton, 18 Bayard v. P^ssmore, 3 Yeates (Pa.) Colo. 568, 33 Pac. 167; S. v. Kaiser, 438. See In re Chadwick, 109 Mich. 20 Or. 50, 23 Pac. 964; Rosewater v. 588, 67 N. W. 1071. Contra, S. v. S., 47 Neb. 630. 66 N. W. 640; Morrill, 16 Ark. 384. Cheadle v. S., 110 Ind. 301, 59 Am. '"Reg. v. DeCastro, 12 Cox C. C. R. 190, 11 N. E. 426; Myers v. S., 371, 1 Green C. R. 121; Reg. v. 0ns- 46 Ohio St. 473. 22 N. E. 43; S. v. low, 12 Cox C. C. 358, 1 Green C. JR. Frew, 24 W. Va. 416, 49 Am. R. 257; 110; 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 259. See Matter of Cheeseman, 49 N. J. L. 115, Stuart v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 396; 60 Am. R. 596, 6 Atl. 513; In re In re Hughes, 8 N. M. 225, 43 Pac. Hughes, 8 N. M. 225, 43 Pac. 692; 692; 4 Bl. Com. 285. S. V. Andersoii, 40 Iowa 207; Matter 436 hughes' criminal law. § 1694 defamatory language by an attorney against the judge of the court reflecting on his ofHeial action in reference to some cases pending in court and reflecting also on his private character, but not used in th& immediate view or presence of the court or judge, but on the streets and in public places in the city in which the court was holding, does not constitute contempt.*" , § 1694. Bribing juror. — An attempt to bribe or in any manner influence a juror in the discharge of his duty is a contempt of court.*^ Holding a communication with a juror by signals, for the purpoee of receiving information as to how the jury stood regarding their ver- dict in a cause, is a contempt.*^ Mr. Bishop states that it was held to be a contempt where, after a jury had convicted a person on a crim- inal charge, his brother went to the house of the foreman and accused him of having bullied the jurors into rendering a verdict of guilty and challenged the foreman to mortal combat.** § 1695. Threatening grand jury. — Sending insulting and threat- ening communications to a grand jury relating to matters which that body is investigating is a contempt of court.** Eeflections on the grand jury published by the press can not be regarded as contempts, unless calculated to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the administration of law.*° The publication of an article concerning a pending trial which is calculated to prejudice the jury and prevent a fair trial is a contempt of court, irrespective of the motive prompting the publica- tion.*® § 1696. Abstracting files. — Taking papers from the files of the court and refusing to return them is a contempt of court.*' § 1697. Contempt by attorney. — The conduct of attorneys in the following matters constitutes contempt of court: (1) Commencing " S. V. Root, 5 N. D. 487, 67 N. W. " Matter of Tyler, 64 Cal. 434, 1 590; Percival v. S., 45 Neb. 741, 64 Pac. 884. N. W. 221. See Rosewater v. S., 47 "Storey v. P., 79 111. 45. See Fish- Neb. 630, 66 N. W. 640. back v. S., 131 Ind. 304, 30 N. B. "Langdon v. Wayne Clr. Judges, 1088. 76 Mich. 358, 43 N. W. 310; Cuddy, "Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Petitioner, 131 U. S. 280, 9 S. Ct. 703. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. E. 445. «S. V. Doty, 32 N. J. L. 403, 90 "Barker v. Wilford, Kirby( Conn.) Am. D. 671. 235; In re Gates, 17 W. N. C. (Pa.) "2 Blsh. New Cr. L., § 258, citing 142; Baldwin v. S., 11 Ohio St. 681; Reg. V. Martin, 5 Cox C. C. 356. 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 253. ^1698 CONTEMPT. 437 « suit on a feigned issue to get the decision of the court.*' (2) Charg- ing that the judge of the court is prejudiced.*® (3) Advising clients to disregard the orders of the court.^" (4) Filing pleadings in a cause unnecessarily gross and indelieate.^^ (5) Willfully abusing the pro- •cess of the court.^^ § 1698. Surety justifying falsely. — It is an "unlawful interfer- 'cnce" in a cause, for sureties to justify falsely in an undertaking bond, given for the purpose of discharging an attachment. Such conduct is a contempt of court.'* Or to justify falsely in an appeal bond.''^* § 1699. Witness refusing to ansvsrer. — A witness who refuses to answer proper questions before a grand jury is guilty of a contempt of the court which organized the grand jury.'* And so, also, the refusal ■of a witness to answer proper questions in any lawful proceeding in which the court has jurisdiction is a contempt of the court.''^ § 1700. Witness disobeying subpena. — Where a subpena has been lawfully issued and served on a witness and he refuses to comply with its requirements, he is guilty of contempt.'* In a civil ease, a witness, though a party to the case, is not bound to obey a subpena, unless his fees as such witness have iDeen tendered to him.'' "Smith V. Junction R. Co., 29 Ind. 546; Smith v. Brown, 3 Tex. 360, 49 Am. D. 748. " Harrison v. S., 35 Ark. 458. ™ King V. Barnes, 113 N. Y. 476, 21 N. E. 182, 51 Hun 550, 4 N. Y. Supp. 247; Ter. v. Clancey, 7 N. M. 584, 37 Pac. 1108. "Brown v. Brown, 4 Ind. 627, 58 Am. D. 641. == Butler V. P., 2 Colo. 295. "'P. V. Tamsen, 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 212, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1047. "^ King V. Barnes, 51 Hun 550, 4 N. Y. Supp. 247, 113 N. Y. 476, 21 N. E. 182; Lawrence v. Harrington, 63 Hun 195, 17 N. Y. Supp. 649, 133 N. Y. 690, 31 N. E. 627. "Com. V. Bannon, 97 Mass. 214; P. V. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; Ward v. S., 2 Mo. 120, 22 Am. D. 449; Newsum ■v. S., 78 Ala. 407; Lockwood v. S., 1 Ind. 161; U. S. v. Caton, 1 Cranch 150; Smith v. P., 20 111. App. 591; In re Rogers, 129 Cal. 468, 62 Pac. 47. ^ In re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. 581, 63 N. W. 1065, 64 N. W. 299; S. v. Bar- clay, 86 Mo. 55; Page v. Randall, 6 Cal. 32; P. v. Marston, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 257; Wright v. P., 112 111. 540; Dixon v. P., 63 111. App. 585; Ex parte Adams, 25 Miss. 883, 59 Am. D. 234; S. V. Lonsdale, 48 Wis. 348, 4 N. W. 390; S. v. Towle, 42 N. H. 540; Barnes v. Circuit Judge, 81 Mich. 374, 45 N. W. 1016; Whit- comb's Case, 120 Mass. 118, 21 Am. R. 502; Matter of 6annon, 69 Cal. 541, 11 Pac. 240; Wilcox v. S., 46 Neb. 402, 64 N. W. 1072; La Fontaine V. Southern, etc., Assn., 83 N. C. 132; P. V. Hicks, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 153; P. V. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; In re Ab- bott, 7 Okl. 78, 54 Pac. 319. ™ Carman v. Emerson, 71 Fed. 264; Loop V. Gould, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 585; Hale V. S., 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 N. E. 199; Wickwire v. S., 19 Conn. 477; Wilson V. S., 57 Ind. 71; Com. v. Carter, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 277; 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 253. "White V. Hermann, 51 111. 243; 438 hughes' CRIMINAti LAW. § 1701 § 1701. Keeping witness away. — Dissuading a witness from giving- evidence, preventing a witness duly subpenaed from attending court, or in any manner spiriting away a witness, is a contempt of court." Preventing or attempting to prevent a witness from attending a trial is a contempt of court, although not subpenaed.^' But there can be no contempt in evading or inducing another to eyade process not yet issued. Until a witness has been subpenaed, or a subpena issued for him, it is clearly no contempt for the accused to induce him to absent himself to prevent being subpenaed."" § 1702. Locking court room. — During the adjournment of the court the defendant, acting under the direction of the county board, changed the locks on the doors and locked them, and refused to permit the judge and other officers attending the court to enter the court room, intending thereby to compel the court to vacate that room : Held to be a contempt of court."^ § 1703. Ordering a "strike." — The "ordering of a strike" on a rail- road which is in the hands of a receiver is a contempt of the court appointing the receiver.*^ And where an injunction has been issued restraining persons from in any manner interfering with the operation of a railroad in the hands of a receiver, by threatening, intimidating, or persuading the employes to stop work, a violation of such injunction is a contempt of court."' Aeticle IV. Defenses to Contempt. § 1704. Disclaiming criminal intent. — Where the language in a publication against a judge is susceptible of only one meaning, by fair construction, and that contemptuous, a disavowal of any wrong intent is no defense."* But where the language used is not libelous per se, Vickers v. Hill, 1 Scam. (111.) 307; from court, pretending to be sick, Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant, 15 111. when given notice, and thereby ob- 438. taining a continuance of the cause, "4 Bl. Com. 126; Com. v. Feely, is a contempt of court: Carter v. 2 Va. Cas. 1; In re Brule, 71 Fed. Com., 96 Va. 791, 32 So. 780, 45 L. R. 943; Hale v. S., 55 Ohio St. 210, 3 A. 310. L. R. A. 254, 45 N. E. 199. " Dahnke v. P., 168 111. 105, 48 =» Montgomery v. Palmer, 100 N. E. 137. Mich. 436, 59 N. W. 148. See 2 '^u. g. v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724; In re Bish. New Cr. L., § 258. Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 S. Ct. 900; «> McConnell v. S., 46 Ind. 298, 2 In re Wabash R. Co., 24 Fed. 217. Green C. R. 724. But see In re »' In re Acker, 66 Fed. 295. Brule, 71 Fed. 943. Remaining away "* Bloom v. P., 23 Colo. 416, 48 Pac> § 1705 CONTEMPT. 439 and admits of an innocent construction, and the defendant by his answer to a charge of contempt makes a complete denial of any inten- tion of reflecting on the court, he is entitled to be discharged.*' Parties are responsible for the language used by them in any proceeding which they may bring into court, and it is not for them, nor their counsel, to construe or say what effect such language will have. A disclaimer and sweeping denial of any intended contempt, but that the party acted in good faith in the language used, is no defense.** But if the language used admits of two interpretations a disavowal will purge the defendant of contempt.*^ § 1705. Witness claiming privilege. — A witness before a court, grand jury, or other inquisitorial body will not be guilty of contempt in refusing to answer questions the answers to which would convict or tend to convict him of a criminal offense.*^ While a witness may claim his privilege from giving or disclosing evidence tending to con- vict him, yet he can not evade answering when his answers will not so tend.*» § 1706. Witness's privilege — ^Example. — A witness before a grand jury was asked : "Do you know of your own knowledge of any person or persons having played for money, or other valuable thing, with cards? If so, state who, for what, and what did they play?" The witness stated : "I can not answer that question without criminating 519; Pishback v. S., 131 Ind. 304, 30 mick v. Sheridan, 77 Cal. 253, 19 N. B. 1088; Cheadle v. S., 110 Ind. Pac. 419. See In re Woolley, 74: 301, 11 N. E. 426; Dodge v. S., 140 Ky. 109. Ind. 284, 39 N. B^ 745; P. v. Freer, "In re Chadwick, 109 Mich. 588, 1 Caines (N. Y.) 485; Ter. v. Mur- 67 N. W. 1071. See Matter of Moore, ray, 7 Mont. 251, 15 Pac. 145; Allen 63 N. C. 397 (setting out the lan- V. S., 131 Ind. 599, 30 N. B. 1093; guage used); Ex parte Biggs, 64 N. In re Woolley, 74 Ky. 95. C. 202. '=In re Chadwlck, 109 Mich. 588, ''Cullen v. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 67 N. W. 1071; Allen v. S., 131 Ind. 625; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 599, 30 N. E. 1093; Fishback v. S., U. S. 547, 12 S. Ct. 195; Matter of 131 Ind. 304, 30 N. E. 1088; In re Nickell, 47 Kan. 734, 27 Am. R. 315, Woolley, 74 Ky. 95. See In re Rob- 28 Pac. 1076; Ex parte Cohen, 104 inson, 117 N. C. 533, 23 S. B. 453. Cal. 524, 43 Am. R. 127, 38 Pac. 364; The court must determine the in- S. v. Nowell, 58 N. H. 314; S. v. tent, by a proper interpretation of Quarles, 13 Ark. 307; Emery's Case, the language used: Hughes v. P., 5 107 Mass. 172, 9 Am. R. 22; Rich- Colo. 453; Henry v. Ellis, 49 Iowa man v. S., 2 Greene (Iowa) 532; 205; P. V. Stapleton, 18 Colo. 568, 33 Minters v. P., 139 111. 365, 29 N. E. Pac. 167. See P. v. Wilson, 64 111. 45. 195, 16 Am. R. 528. ™ Smith v. P., 20 III. App. 591; 2 «> U. S. V. Church, 6 Utah 9, 21 Pac. Bish. New Or. L., § 253. 503, 524, 8 Am. C. R. 138; McCor- 440 hughes' criminal law, § 1707 myself or divulging the names of witnesses who would criminate me and of which witnesses the people have no knowledge, as I believe other than would be derived from my testimony in answering the question." The witness was then informed by the foreman of the grand jury that the question had reference to no game in which he took part. The witness was guilty of contempt in refusing to answer the question. He should have answered "no" if he could not answer without criminating or furnishing evidence tending to criminate him- self.'" § 1707. Witness, when not privileged. — Where by statute a witness is fully and completely protected from indictment, prosecution, or pun- ishment for a criminal offense under investigation, he may be com- pelled to testify and can not claim his privilege that his testimony would furnish evidence to convict or tend to convict him of a criminal offense.''^ A witness refusing to answer questions on the ground that his answers would convict or tend to convict him, where the oSense about which he is being interrogated is barred by the statute of limita- tion, is guilty of contempt.'^ But where the questions put to a wit- ness are irrelevant and impertinent, he will not be guilty of contempt in refusing to answer.'^ § 1708. Witness's privilege, court to judge. — The court is the ex- clusive judge as to whether an answer to a question would convict or tend to convict the witness of any offense. But if the very nature and form of the question would elicit an answer having that effect, then the witness is the sole judge.''* § 1709. Contempt at recess. — Mr. Bishop says that a recess or ad- journment of the court for the day does not dissolve the court. So "Smith V. P., 20 111. App. 591. 754; Mahanke v. Cleland, 76 Iowa "Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524, 43 401, 41 N. W. 53; U. S. v. Smith, Am. R. 127, 38 Pac. 364; P. v. Sharp, 4 Day (Conn.) 121. 107 N. Y. 427, 1 Am. R. 851, 14 N. E. " Ex parte Henshaw, 73 Cal. 486, 319; S. V. Newell, 58 N. H. 314; In re 15 Pac. 110; Ex parte Zeehandelaar, ralvey, 7 Wis. 630; Kendrick v. 71 Cal. 238, 12 Pac. 259. €om., 78 Va. 490; Newsum v. S., 78 " Janvrin v. Scammon, 29 N. H. Ala. 407; Floyd v. S., 7 Tex. 215. 280; P. v. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) But see S. v. Quarles, 13 Ark. 307; 229, 21 Am. D. 122; U. S. v. Mc- Bedgood v. S., 115 Ind. 275, 17 N. E. Carthy, 18 Fed. 87, 21 Blatchf. (U. 621; Cullen v. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) S.) 469; Richman v. S., 2 Greene 629; Emery's Case, 107 Mass. 172, (Iowa) 532; Matter of Taylor, 8 .9 Am. R. 22. Misc. (N. Y.) 159, 28 N. Y. Supp. "Weldon v. Burch, 12 111. 374; 500. But see Com. v. Bell, 145 Pa. Floyd v. S., 7 Tex. 215; Calhoun v. St. 375, 22 Atl. 641, 644 (holding tlie Thompson, 56 Ala. 166, 28 Am. R. judge to be always the sole judge). § 1710 CONTEMPT, 441 that, during such recess, a person may be guilty of contempt by misbe- havior in the court-house, at least if in the presence of the judge hold- ing the court.'"* § 1710. Attacking proceedings. — The defendant on a charge of contempt, for violating an injunction, will not be permitted to attack the truthfulness of the allegations of the original bill.'"' § 1711. Purging by denial. — Where a party in a common law pro- ceeding charged with contempt, by his affidavit, fully denies the charge, he is entitled to his discharge, and the court can not hear oral or other testimony to contradict his answer.'^ § 1712. Defendant unable to comply. — ^If it be fairly proven to the court that at the time or since the order was entered, requiring a defendant to pay money according to the terms of a decree, he was unable to do so, then he is not in contempt of court.''' But where the accused creates the inability to comply with the order of the court in anticipation of an order to pay money or deliver property, he is guilty of contempt.'^' § 1713. Punishable by indictment. — The fact that the offense charged as a contempt may constitute a crime punishable by indict- ment is no defense to a contempt proceeding.*" " 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 253, citing pies v. Staples, 87 Wis. 592, 58 N. W. Baker v. S., 82 Ga. 776, 9 S. B. 743, 1036; Smith v. McLendon, 59 Ga. 14 Am. R. 192. 523; Jenlcins v. S. (Neb.), 82 N. W. '"Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 38 622. But see In re Hilles, 13 Phila. Conn. 121. (Pa.) 340, and Kane v. Haywood, "Burlce v. S., 47 Ind. 528; Welch 66 N. C. 1. -V. P., 30 111. App. 399; Crook v. P., ""IT. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724; S. v. 16 111. 536; Wilson v. S., 57 Ind. 71, Faulds, 17 Mont. 140, 42 Pac. 285; 2 Am. C. R. 183; S. v. Earl, 41 Ind. S. v. Williams, 2 Speers (S. C.) 26; 464; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 461. Con- Rex v. Ossulston, 2 Strange 1107; tra, U. S. V. Church, 6 Utah 9, 21 Spalding v. P., 7 Hill (N. Y.) 301; Pac. 503, 524, 8 Am. C. R. 138; Cartwright's Case, 114 Mass. 230; Henry v. Ellis, 49 Iowa 205; U. S. v. Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) Anonymous, 21 Fed. 761; S. v. 417, 6 Am. D. 290; Matter of Griffin, Bridge Co., 16 W. Va. 864; Watson 98 N. C. 225, 3 S. E. 515; Arnold v. V. Citizens' Bank, 5 S. C. 159. See Com., 80 Ky. 300, 44 Am. R. 480; § 1755. Hale v. S., 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 N. E. "Walton V. Walton, 54 N. J. Eq. 199; Pledger v. S., 77 Ga. 242, 3 S. E. 607, 35 Atl. 289; Register v. S., 8 320; Middlebrook v. S., 43 Conn. Minn. 214. 257, 21 Am. R. 650; In re Hughes, " Bx parte Kellogg, 64 Cal. 343, 30 8 N. M. 225, 43 Pac. 692; S. v. Pac. 1030; Myers v. Trimble, 3 E. D. Faulds, 17 Mont. 140, 42 Pac. 285; Smith (N. Y.) 607; Wise v. Chaney, Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 26 67 Iowa 73, 24 N. W. 599; Cart- Pac. 914; Bradley v. S., Ill Ga. 168, Wright's Case, 114 Mass. 230; Sta- 36 S. E. 630. 442 hughes' criminal law. § 1714 § 1714. Advice of counsel. — The fact, that the act alleged to be a contempt was done by the accused after consultation with his coun- sel and upon his advice will not justify a disobedience of the order of the court on a charge of contempt.^^ But such advice when acted upon in good faith will eliminate any criminal element from the eon- tempt.^^ § 1715. Complete disavowal — ^Ignorance. — A complete disavowal will, ordinarily, purge the contempt by a showing that the act charged was innocently done, and under some circumstances resulted from ig- norance : as, where an officer in the discharge of his duties does the act in good faith under instructions from his superior.** § 1716. Intent, when not material. — But in a proceeding for civil contempt instituted by a private individual for the purpose of pro- tecting and enforcing his private rights, the offense does not depend on the intention or motive of the party in doing or failing to do the act alleged as a contempt, but on the act itself. The state of mind toward the court in such ease is not material.'* § 1717. Defendant unable to comply. — On a charge of contempt for a failure to obey an order of the court, the defendant may purge himself of the alleged contempt by showing that he was actually unable to comply with the order.*' «S. v. Board Pub. Works, 58 N. J. 48 N. J. Eq. 105, 21 Atl. 182; Wart- L. 536, 37 Atl. 578; Hawley v. Ben- man v. Wartman, Taney's Dec. (U. nett, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 164; S. v. Har- S.) 362; Watson v. Citizens' Sav. per's Ferry B. Co., 16 W. Va. 864; Bank, 5 S. C. 159. See also S. v. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Collins, 62 N. H. 694; Rogers Mfg. Fed. 683; Lansing v. Easton, 7 Paige Co. v. Rogers, 38 Conn. 121; Vose v. (N. Y.) 364; Delozier v. Bird, 123 Reed, 1 Woods (U. SJ 647; Des N. C. 689, 31 S. E. 834. Moines St. R. Co. v. Des Moines ^ Power v. Athens, 19 Hun (N. Y.) Broad Gauge St. R. Co., 74 Iowa 165; Matthews v. Spangenberg, 15 585, 38 N. W. 496. Fed. 813; Billings v. Carver, 54 »» Blake v. P., 80 111. 11; Kadlow- Barb. (N. Y.) 40. See Trimble v. sky v. Kadlowsky, 63 111. App. 292; Com., 96 Va. 818, 32 S. E. 786. S. v. Dent, 29 Kan. 416; Newhouse == McQuade v. Emmons, 38 N. J. L. v. Newhouse, 14 Or. 290, 12 Pac. 422; 397; Buck v. Buck, 60 111. 105; Mat- Russell v. Russell, 69 Me. 336; Ex ter of Filton, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) parte Wright, 65 Ind. 504; Cowart 303; Wells v. Com., 21 Gratt. (Va.) v. Dunbar, 56 Ga. 417; Boyett v. 500; Haskett v. S., 51 Ind. 176; S. v. Vaughan, 89 N. C. 27; Wright v. GofC, Wright (Ohio) 79; P. v. Pew, Wright, 74 Wis. 439, 43 N. W. 145; 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 290. Kurd v. Hurd, 63 Minn. 443, 65 N. « Wilcox Silver-Plate Co. V. Schim- W. 728; Allen v. Allen, 72 Iowa 502, mel, 59 Mich. 525, 26 N. W. 692; 34 N. W. 303; Hull v. Harris, 45 Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Conn. 544; Matter of Ockershausen, § 1718 CONTEMPT. 443 § 1718. Property disposed of before order. — Where a party had dis- posed of property before an order was issued by the court directing him to turn it over to a receiver, he will not be in contempt of court in failing to turn it over, if the property had passed out of his control not in anticipation of such order of the court.®^ § 1719. Attorney claiming property. — An attorney for a defendant in an action in which Judgment is rendered that the defendant restore possession of the premises, who thereupon notifies the sheriff that he is the owner and in exclusive possession of the premises, and that the defendant is not in possession, and that he will by all lawful means resist any attempt to take the possession from him, is not thereby guilty of contempt, though his notice deters the sheriff from serving the writ.*^ § 1720. Stranger to cause. — A person who is not a party to a cause, by interfering and ousting a party who has been put in possession of property by a writ of possession, is not guilty of contempt of court.** § 1721. Constitutional rights; trial by judge. — The constitutional provisions relating to persons accused of crime have no application to contempt cases. The defendant in a contempt proceeding has no constitutional right to meet the witnessess against him, face to face, as in criminal cases.*' A contempt proceeding may be tried by any one of the Judges holding the court, although the contempt was com- mitted when a different Judge was presiding.'" § 1722. Husband unable to pay. — ^When the husband, without his fault, is unable to pay alimony, and for that reason fails to obey the order of the court, he is not guilty of contempt.'^ 59 Hun (N. Y.) 200, 13 N. Y. Supp. 637; WMttem v. S., 36 Ind. 196; 396; Matter of Wilson, 75 Cal. 580, Haight v. Lucia, 36 Wis. 355. 17 Pac. 698. =' Blake v. P., 80 111. 11; Kadlow- ''McKissack v. Voorliees, 119 Ala. sky v. Kadlowsky, 63 111. App. 292; 101, 24 So. 523. Matter of Wilson, 75 Cal. 580, 17 »' DeWitt V. Superior Court (Cal.), Pac. 698; S. v. Dent, 29 Kan. 416; 47 Pac. 871. Newhouse v. Newhouse, 14 Or. 290, =»Atwood V. S., 59 Kan. 728, 54 12 Pac. 422; Carlton v. Carlton, 44 Pac. 1057. See Ex parte Truman, Ga. 216; Lockridge v. Lockridge, 3 124 Cal. 387, 57 Pac. 223. Dana (Ky.) 28, 28 Am. D. 52; ''Buck V. Buck, 60 III. 105; 2 Wright v.^ Wright, 74 Wis. 439, 43 Bish. New Cr. L., § 269. N. W. 145; Pain v. Pain, 80 N. C. "Morris v. Whitehead, 65 N. C. 322; Peel v. Peel, 50 Iowa 521; Allen. V. Allen, 72 Iowa 502, 34 N. W. 303. 444 hughes' criminal law. § 1723 § 1723. Jurisdiction of person. — The court must have jurisdiction not only of the person and subject-matter, but also authority to render the particular judgment."^ Where a court exceeds its jurisdiction in issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, an order of commitment for a refusal to comply is a nullity and hence the refusal is not a contempt of court.'^ § 1724. Juror's conduct. — A juror in a criminal case, without the permission of the court, visited the scene of the crime to acquaint himself with the locality. Held not guilty of contempt. Such act of the juror was not a private or civil contempt, because no right of an individual suitor was invaded before the court; and it was not a criminal contempt, because not one of those enumerated in the statute which named and defined certain acts as criminal contempts, "and no others."'* § 1725. Expert witness refusing. — A physician in refusing to give his professional opinion as an expert witness unless first compensated by a proper fee for his services will not be guilty of contempt of court, the law being that a professional man has the right to demand such ■compensation before testifying as an expert."^ § 1726. Party's rights, though in contempt. — Where a party to a cause stands adjudged in contempt of court, he will not ordinarily be permitted to be heard on the merits of the order from which the •contempt originated; nor will the court entertain any motions of the contemner as matters of favor while he, stands in contempt." "'P. V. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 14 jurors, see: In re May, 1 Fed. 737, Am. R. 211; Ex parte Degener, 30 2 Flip. 562; Miller v. Com., 80 Va. Tex. App. 566, 17 S. W. 1111; Ex 33; Murphy v. Wilson, 46 Ind. 537; parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 S. Ct. 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 25. 724. °= Buchman v. S., 59 Ind. 1, 2 Am. "^ In re McCain, 9 S. D. 57, 68 C. R. 187, 26 Am. R. 75, ciUng many N. W. 163; S. V. Winder, 14 Wash. American and English cases; Matter 114, 44 Pae. 125; In re Rosenberg, of Roelker, 1 Sprague (U. S.) 276. 90 Wis. 581, 63 N. W. 1065, 64 N. W. Contra, Dixon v. P., 168 111. 179, 48 299; S. V. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 18 N. E. 108; Ex parte Dement, 53 Ala. Pac. 177; Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 389, 25 Am. R. 611; Summers v. S., 138. See McKinney v. Frankfort, 5 Tex. App. 374. etc., R. Co., 140 Ind. 95, 38 N. B. ""Ex parte McCarthy, 29 Cal. 395; 170, 39 N. B. 500; Kirk v. Milwau- S. v. Ackerson, 25 N. J. L. 209; kee, etc., Mfg. Co., 26 Fed. 501. Knott v. P., 83 111. 532; Cohurn v. °*P. v. Court of Oyer and Ter- Tucker, 21 Mo. 219; Jacoby v. Goet- miner, 101 N. Y. 245, 4 N. B. 259, 6 ter, 74 Ala. 427; Snickers v. Dorsey, Am. C. R. 168. On contempt by 2 Munf. (Va.) 505; Saylor v. Moct- § 1727 CONTEMPT. 445 But the contemner may be heard on the measure of punishment in the contempt proceedings."^ But the fact that a party stands in con- tempt will in no manner affect any of his legal rights in the cause out of which the contempt arose. He may appear and defend against any proceedings of his adversary and take any necessary steps to preserve his rights in the cause in which the contempt originated.*® Article V. Entitling the Cause. § 1727. In original or distinct cause. — In proceedings for criminal contempt the application for attachment may be made and filed in the original cause, but will be regarded as a distinct case, criminal in its nature, and may be docketed as such, and any judgment entered therein will exhaust the power of the court to further punish for the same offense."" But in some jurisdictions, if a contempt proceeding is really but an incident of the principal suit the practice seems to be to entitle and file the papers in the original cause. But when the proceeding is for criminal contempt it would be more appropriate to prosecute in the name of the people, and such is the general prac- tice.^"" When the contempt is committed in a pending cause the pro- ceeding is to punish the offender as a proceeding by itself. It is not entitled in the cause pending but on the criminal side, and is a sep- arate proceeding.^ But the practice is not uniform : sometimes the proceedings are in the name of the state against the offender and some- bie, 9 Iowa 209; Gant v. Gant, 10 Horton, 46 III. App. 434 (appeal). Humph. (Tenn.) 464, 55 Am. D. 736; " Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. E. Pickett V. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177, 55 387, 37 N. E. 1004; Ingraham v. Am. R. 545; Rogers v. Paterson, 4 P., 94 111. 428; Cartwright's Case, 114 Paige (N. Y.) 450; Goldstein v. S. Mass. 238; New Orleans v. Steam- (Tex. Cr.), 23 S. W. 686; Walker v. ship Co., 20 "Wall. 392; S. v. Nathans, Walker, 82 N. Y. 260, 20 Hun 400; 49 S. G. 199, 27 S. B. 52; Freeman Wharton v. Stoutenhurgh, 39 N. J. v. City of Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 66 Eq. 299; McClung v. McCluhg, 40 N. W. 928. Mich. 493; Baily v. Baily, 69 Iowa ™ Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. 77, 28 N. W. 443; Crahtree v. Baker, B. 387, 37 N. E. 1004; Blake v. Blake, 75 Ala. 91, 51 Am. R. |24. 80 111. 523; Tolman v. Jones, 114 111.' "Endicott v. Mathis, 9 N. J. Bq. 147, 28 N. E. 464; Walton v. Devel- 110; Williamson v. Carnan, 1 Gill & Ing, 61 111. 206; Wightman v. Wight- J. (Md.) 184. See Robinson v. man, 45 111. 167; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Owen, 46 N. H. 38. 111. 261; P. v. Diedrich, 141 111. 670, "'Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409; 30 N. E. 1038; Rapalje on Contempt, S. v. .Field, 37 Mo. App. 83; Peel v. § 95. Peel, 50 Iowa 521; Mead v. Norris, 'Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. St. 9, 21 Wis. 311; Johnson v. Court, 63 18, citing Case of Yates, 4 Johns. Cal. 578; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 (N. Y.) 325, 370, 375; Yates v. Lan- N. Y. 40. See Herndon v. Campbell, sing, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 423; Ex parte 86 Tex. 168, 23 S. W. 980; P. v. Adams, 25 Miss. 886. 446 hughes' criminal law. § 1728 times bearing the title of the cause out of which the proceeding arose. ^ § 1728. Judge invading one's rights. — The judge of the court is not warranted in molesting a person who is conducting himself re- spectfully in the presence of the court in the doing of any act which he may lawfully do in the presence of the conrt.^ § 1729. Notary public unauthorized. — A notary public is not au- thorized to try and punish for contempt, and a statute conferring such power on him is invalid.* § 1730. No jury trial. — The constitutional provisions of the states of the United States preserving and guaranteeing the right of trial by jury have no application to contempt proceedings.^ The right to punish for contempt without the intervention of a jury is recognized and fully established by the common law.° A jury trial in a contempt case is unauthorized.'^ § 1731. Imprisonment for debt. — Though the constitution or a statute has abolished imprisonment for debt, a contempt incurred in a suit founded on the debt may be visited by imprisonment.* § 1732. Commitment is execution. — ^A commitment for contempt is an execution, in distinction from mesne process, and no bail is there- fore allowable.® = S. V. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 "Arnold v. Com., 80 Ky. 300; Ex S. B. 52. parte Grace, 12 Iowa 208. »2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 252, citing 'Garrigus v. S., 93 Ind. 239; Bm- Stokeley v. -Com., 1 Va. Cas. 330; ery's Case, 107 Mass. 172; Lewis v. Blight v. Fisher, Peters C. C. 41. Garrett, 5 How. (Miss.) 434; Eilen- ' In re Huron, 58 Kan. 152, 48 Pac. becker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 574. See also In re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 31, 10 S. Ct. 424; Patrick v. Warner, 37 Pac. 135. 4 Paige (N. Y.) 397; Proffatt Jury ■■Garrigus v. S., 93 Ind. 239; Bar- Trial, § 103. clay V. Barclay, 184 111. 471, 56 N. B. =2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 242, citing 821; Burke v. Ter., 2 Okla. 499, 37 Bogart v. Blec. Supply Co., 23 Pac. 829; S. v. Becht, 23 Minn. 411, Blatchf. 552, 27 Fed. 722; In re Mil- 414; S. V. Markuson, 5 N. D. 147, 64 burn, 59 Wis. 24, 17 N. W. 965; S. v. N. W. 934; S. v. Markuson, 7 N. D. Becht, 23 Minn. 411; Ex parte 155, 73 N. W. 82; McDonnell v. Hen- Hardy, 68 Ala. 303. derson, 74 Iowa 619, 38 N. W. 512; »2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 270, citing Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Conn. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 174; Ludden v. S., 31 Neb. 429, 48 38, 43; Farrell's Case, Andr. 298; N. W. 61; S. V. Matthews, 37 N. H. Phelips v. Barrett, 4 Price 23. But 450; Bx parte Hamilton, 51 Ala. 66; if attached before committed and Crow V. S., 24 Tex. 12; 2 Bish. New until committed, bail is allowable: Cr. L., § 269. 4 Bl. Com. 287. ^ 1733 CONTEMPT. 447 § 1733. No change of venue. — An order changing the venue in a contempt ease is void ; it does not divest the court before which it was commenced of its jurisdiction to dispose of the proceeding. No other court can take cognizance of the contempt.^" Article VI. Complaint ob Affidavit. § 1734. Affidavit — When necessary. — "If the contempt be commit- ted in the face of the court the offender may be instantly apprehended and imprisoned at the discretion of the judges without any further proof or examination. But in matters that arise at a distance and of which the court can not have so perfect a knowledge," an affidavit should be made.^^ Where the contempt is committed out of the presence of the court an affidavit must be made by some person compe- tent as a witness, stating the facts constituting the contempt, before the court can take notice of it.^^ § 1735. Affidavit must allege facts. — Proceedings against a party for a constructive contempt must be commenced by either a rule to show cause or by an attachment, and such rule should not be made or attachment issued unless upon affidavit specifically making the charge, setting forth the facts constituting the contempt.^^ § 1736. Proceedings without complaint. — That the judge of the court may have personal knowledge of the facts constituting a con- tempt committed out of the presence of the court will not warrant '° Crook V. P., 16 111. 534; Bloom v. 47 Kan. 734, 28 Pac. 1076; In re Mur- P., 23 Colo. 416, 48 Pac. 519; 2 Bish. dock, 2 Bland 461, 20 Am. D. 381; New Cr. L., § 268. Com. v. Snowden, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) "4 Bl. Com. 286; Matter of Percy, 218; Rinelander v. Dunham, 2 Civ. 2 Daly (N. Y.) 530; P. v. Cartwright, Proc. R. (N. Y.) 32; S. v. Thompson, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 362; Whittem v. S., 2 Ohio D. 30; Thomas v. P., 14 Colo. 36 Ind. 196; S. v. Gibson, 33 W. Va. 254, 23 Pac. 326; Jordan v. Circuit 97, 10 S. E. 58; P. v. Turner, 1 CaL Court, 69 Iowa 177, 28 N. W. 548; 152; S. V. Keeper of Jail, 5 N. J. L. Saunderson v. S., 151 Ind. 550, 52 184. N. B. 151. But see P. v. Court of "Whittem v. S., 36 Ind. 196; Sessions, 82 Hun 242, 31 N. Y. Supp. Chapin v. P., 57 111. App. 577. See 373. Hawthorne v. S., 45 Net). 871, 64 "McConnell v. S., 46 Ind. 298, 2 N. "W. 359; S. v. Henthorn, 46 Kan. Green C. R. 724, citing Whittem v. 613, 26 Pac. 937; S. v. Vincent, 46 S., 36 Ind. 196, 213. See McCredie Kan. 618, 620, 26 Pac. 939; In re v. Senior, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 378; In Harmer, 47 Kan. 262, 27 Pac. 1004; re Smethurst, 4 How. Pr. 369, 3 Code Wilson V. Ter., 1 Wyo. 155; S. v. R. (N. Y.) 55. Blackwell, 10 S. C. 35; In re Nickell, 448 hughes' criminal law. § 1737 him in filing an unverified statement as a basis of contempt pro- ceedings.^* § 1737. Affidavit necessary to jurisdiction. — Where no affidavit or information was filed on which to base proceedings for constructive contempt, one imprisoned will be discharged on habeas corpus pro- ceedings. The judgment is void.^° § 1738. Affidavit, must state jurisdictional facts. — ^In order to give the court jurisdiction in a contempt proceeding the affidavit must show on its face sufficient facts to constitute a contempt. The affi- davit on which the proceeding is based is jurisdictional, and all the jurisdictional facts must affirmatively appear by the affidavit before the court can take action thereon.^' § 1739. Affidavit on information. — The court will not have juris- diction to inquire into the proceedings for contempt unless every material fact constituting the alleged violation is stated in the affidavit upon which the contempt proceeding is based. The affidavit, in alleg- ing the facts upon information and belief only, is not sufficient and does not confer jurisdiction.^^ § 1740. Affidavit, tested by rules. — An affidavit in a proceeding for criminal contempt is to be tested by the rules of criminal pleading applicable to indictments and informations, whether the proceeding be under a statute or at common law.^* § 1741. Complaint, waiving defects. — The party accused of con- tempt by appearing and answering the charge waives any defects in "Snyder v. S., 151 Ind. 553, 52 N. N. W. 415; Strait v. Williams, 18 E. 152. Nev. 430, 4 Pac. 1083; Wyatt v. P., "In re Blush, 5 Kan. App. 879, 48 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Cooley v. Pac. 147. See Com. v. Perkins, 124 S., 46 Neb. 603, 65 N. W. 799; Young Pa. St. 36, 16 Atl. 525; P. v. Pirfen- v. Cannon, 2 Utah 560; S. v. Allen, hrink, 96 111. 68; Ex parte Fisk, 113 14 Wash. 684, 45 Pac. 644. See In U. S. 713, 5 S. Ct. 724; In re Leach, re Meggett, 105 Wis. 291, 81 N. W. 51 Vt. 630; P. V. Court of Oyer & 419 (ability to comply). Terminer, 101 N. Y. 245, 54 Am. R. " Freeman v. City of Huron, 8 S. 691, 4 N. E. 259; Wyatt v. P., 17 D. 435, 66 N. W. 928; Jordan v. Cir- Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Ex parte cuit Court, 69 Iowa 177, 28 N. W. Hardy, 68 Ala. 303; P. v. Adams, 6 548; Ludden v. S., 31 Neb. 429, 48 Hill (N. Y.) 236; Ex parte Rlckert, N. W. 61. „ 126 Cal. 244, 58 Pac. 549. " S. v. Boot, 5 N. D. 487, 67 N. W. "S. V. Sweetland, 3 S. D. 503, 54 590. § 1742 CONTEMPT. 449 the complaint or affidavit upon which the order was issued.^® But a defective affidavit for contempt is not cured by the defendant's giving bail.2" § 1742. Complaint, testing sufficiency. — In a contempt proceeding" a motion to discharge or vacate the rule to show cause is a proper mode of testing the sufficiency of the affidavit or information on which the rule is based."^ Aeticlb VII. Application foe Eule. § 1743. Notice, service of copy. — When the party proceeds by an order to show cause why an attachment should not issue for contempt, copies of the order and of the affidavits and other papers on which it is founded must be served on the accused or his solieitor.^^ § 1744. Rule to show cause — Service. — An order or rule of the court to show cause why an attachment should not issue against the defendant should be served on him personally instead of his attorney, unless some special reason to the contrary appears, as where the de- fendant conceals himself to evade service.''^ But it has been held that the rule requiring service on the defendant personally has applica- tion only to cases of criminal contempt.^* "P. V. Court of Sessions, 147 N. 91 Ga. 107, 16 S. E. 659; Hedges v. Y. 290, 41 N. B. 700, 82 Hun 242, 31 Superior Court, 67 Cal. 405, 7 Pac. N. Y. Supp. 373; Zimmerman v. S., 767; Ex parte Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198, 46 Neb. 13, 64 N. W. 375; In re 19 Pac. 380, 11 Am. R. 263. Acock, 84 Cal. 50, 23 Pac. 1029; S. "Cheadle v. S., 110 Ind. 301, 11 V. District Court, 65 Minn. 146, 67 N. E. 426, 59 Am. R. 199. N. "W. 796. '? Pitt V. Davison, 37 N. Y. 235-240; ""S. v. Gallup, 1 Kan. App. 618, 42 Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Pac. 406. On the sufficiency of the Y.) 372, 38 Am. D. 551; Flommerfelt affidavit or complaint in a contempt v. Zellers, 7 N. J. L. 31. See Whit- proceeding, see the following addi- tern v. S., 36 Ind. 196; In re Smeth- tional cases: Curtis v. Gordon, 62 urst, 4 N. Y. Supr. (2 Sand.) 724, Vt. 340, 20 Atl. 820; Andrew v. An- 4 How. Pr. 369; "Ward v. Arenson, drew, 62 Vt. 495, 20 Atl. 8l7; P. v. 23 N. Y. Supr. (10 Bos.) 589; In re Court of Sessions, 82 Hun 242, 31 Farr, 41 Kan. 276, 21 Pac. 273. N. Y. Supp. 373; King v. Carpenter, ^'S. v. Assessors, 53 N. J. L. 156, 48 Hun 617, 2 N. Y. Supp. 121; 20 Atl. 966; Eureka, etc., Canal Co. Sweeny v. Traverse, 82 Iowa 720, 47 v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. 311, 5 N. W. 889; Silvers v. Traverse, 82 Pac. 490; Bate Refrig. Co. v. Gilett, Iowa 52, 47 N. W. 888; Worland v. 24 Fed. 696; Morris v. Creel, 1 Va' S., 82 Ind. 49; McConnell v. S., 46 Cas. 333. Ind. 298; In re Spencer, 4 Mac- " Pitt v. Davison, 37 N. Y. 235 34 Arthur & M. 433; Pittman v. Hagins, How. Pr. 355. HDGHES' C. L. — 29 450 ' hughes' criminal law. § 1745 § 1745. Notice, no particular form. — Where notice is given to the party charged with contempt no particular form of notice is required. It is sufficient if it advises him of the specific acts done by him con- stituting the contempt. The usual practice is to serve him with a copy of the order and of the affidavit and any other papers on which the charge is founded.^' § 1746. Notice, when not necessary. — An attachment may issue without any notice where the party in contempt neglects to obey the order of the court to pay alimony pendente lite."^ It is not necessary to give the defendant notice of the contempt proceedings before the attachment issues, the object of the attachment being to make sure of the attendance of the defendant before the court and show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. ^^ ' :§ 1747. Rule should state facts. — Where the court enters a rule t)n the defendant to show cause why an attachment should not issue for contempt, the rule should recite the facts constituting the con- tempt, but it will be sufficient if it informs him in a general way of the nature of the charge.^^ § 1748. Appearance by attorney. — Where the court enters an order for a party to appear before the court on a certain day stated, he has the right to appear by his attorney with his answer in writing, and is not in contempt in failing to appear personally.^' A party having failed to pay money for the support of his child as decreed, the court, therefore, ordered that he appear before the court in person on a day stated to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. lAt the appointed time he appeared by his attorney, who presented to the court his answer under oath and some affidavits which he offered to file in response to the order against him, but the court » Bush V. Chenault, 12 Ky. L. 249; See P. v. Kenny, 2 Hun (N. T.) 346; Pitt v. Davison, 37 N. Y. 235, 240. Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 26 '"Petrie v. P., 40 111. 343; Ex Pac. 914. parte Petrie, 38 111. 502. =• Ex parte Gordan, 92 Cal. 478, 28 " Ex parte Petrie, 38 111. 498. See Pac. 489, 27 Am. R. 154; Watrous Jackson v. Smith, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) v. Kearney, 79 N. Y. 496; P. v. Van 115. Wyck, 2 Calnes (N. Y.) 333; Gordan ^« Stewart v. S., 140 Ind. 7, 39 N. v. Buckles, 92 Cal. 481, 28 Pac. 490. E. 508; Hawkins v. S., 125 Ind. 570, Contra, Vertner v. Martin, 18 Miss. 25 N. E. 818; Pitt v. Davison, 37 103. See Ex parte Hamilton, 51 Ala. :N. Y. 235, 37 Barb. 97; Hammersley 66. V. Parker, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 25. § 1749 CONTEMPT. 451 refused to receive them and entered judgment for contempt for not appearing in person and issued an attachment for his arrest : Held that the attachment was void, the court having no jurisdiction to issue it ; that he had a right to appear by attorney.^" Article VIII. Issuing Attachment Process. § 1749. Attachment not necessary. — If the contempt is committed in the presence of the court the offending party may be ordered into custody without a warrant or written order first made out.^^ Process is not required where a contempt is committed in the presence of the court. The court may proceed and sentence the contemner, though he absents himself before the court takes action. ^^ § 1750. Attachment without rule. — An attachment will issue in the first instance without a rule to show cause, where the contempt is flagrant or where the accused stands in defiance of the court, and the court is fully advised of the facts constituting the contempt.^* Where it appears that an order to show cause can not be served, then an attachment should be applied for to compel attendance of the party accused of contempt; and if he can not be found, alias and plures attachments should issue.'* § 1751. Attachment, contents of it. — It is not necessary to set out the attachment proceedings in the attachment for contempt, nor is it necessary to recite technically all of the jurisdictional facts. If it ap- pears on the face of the attachment that it was issued in a cause of which the court had jurisdiction, it is sufBeient.*' =° Ex parte Gordan, 92 Cal. 478, 28 =" S. v. Soule, 8 Rob. (La.) 500; Pac. 489, 27 Am. R. 154. McDonough v. Bullock, 2 Pears. "^S. V. Matthews, 37 N. H. 453; (Pa.) 194; Andrews v. Andrews, 2 Holcomb V. Cornish, 8 Conn. 375, Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 109; Thomas v. 378; Ex parte Wright, 65 Ind. 504; Cummins, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 1; In re Com. V. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408; Smethurst, 4 N. Y. Supr. 724, 4 How P. V. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 75. See Smith Pr. 369. See Jackson v. Mann, 2 V. Waalkes, 109 Mich. 16, 66 N. W. Calnes (N. Y.) 92. 679; S. V. Root, 5 N. D. 487, 67 N. ""Pitt v. Davison, 37 Barb. 97 37 W. 590; Middlebrook v. S., 43 Conn. N. Y. 235. 257, 21 Am. R. 650; Jackson v. °° P. v. Tamsen, 37 N. Y. Supp. 407 Smith, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 117; Lewis 25 Civ. Proc. 141; Dunford v! V. Miller, 21 Miss. 110; Hawkins v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445. See Tucker S., 125 Ind. 570, 25 N. E. 818, 8 Cr. v. Oilman, 60 Hun 577, 14 N Y L. Mag. 498. Supp. 392, 20 Civ. Proc. 397. ^ Middlebrook v. S., 43 Conn. 257, 21 Am. R. 650. 452 hughes' criminal law. § 175,2 § 1752. Motion for attachment not contested. — ^Where a contempt proceeding is instituted by giving the defendant notice of a motioa for an attachment, and such motion is not contested, the matter then stands for final hearing- the same as an order to show cause why the defendant should not be punished for contempt.^^ § 1753. Process against corporation. — Proceedings for contempt will lie against corporations as well as individuals. In equity the process against the corporation is by writ of sequestration; in courts of law, distringas is the appropriate writ, and by attachment against individuals.^^ Article IX. Evidence; Trial. § 1754. Burden on prosecution — Preponderance. — The facts neces- sary to support a charge of contempt must be proven by the party instituting the contempt proceedings. The defendant is presumed to be innocent and the burden is on the complainant to establish his guilt.** Before a conviction is warranted in a contempt proceeding, the facts constituting the alleged contempt must be clearly and satis- factorily proved ; a mere preponderance of evidence is not sufficient.'" § 1755. Defendant's answer conclusive. — Where a contempt pro- ceeding is instituted to vindicate the majesty of the law or dignity of the court, the defendant will be discharged, if, by his answers to inter- rogatories filed, he makes such a statement as will free him from the imputed contempt, and opposing testimony will not be heard.*" But where the contempt is charged to have been committed in a cause in a court of equity, the answer of the accused may be contradicted ^by opposing testimony.*^ In all cases of proceedings for constructive =°Iii re Nichols, 54 N. Y. 62. 469; Probasco v. Probasco, 30 N. J. ^'S. V. Board Pub. Works, 58 N. J. Eq. 61; U. S. v. Jose, 63 Fed. 951 L. 536,. 37 AtL 578; Hills v. Savings (reasonable doubt); Accumulator Bank, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 546. An at- Co. v. Elec. Storage Co., 53 Fed. 793. tachment directed as follows is suffl- " Loven v. P., 158 111. 167, 42 N. cient: "To any and all sheriffs of all E. 82; Storey v. P., 79 111. 52; Crook the counties of the state of Illi- v. P., 16 111. 534; Buck v. Buck, 60 nois:" P. v. Pearson, 3 Scam. (111.) 111. 105; Haskett v. S., 61 Ind. 176; 270. Crow V. S., 24 Tex. 12; Thomas v. "»Call V. Pike, 68 Me. 217; Dines Cummins, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 40. V. P., 39 111. App. 565. " P. V. Dledrich, 141 111. 670, 30 ™In re Buckley, 69 Cal. 1, 10 Pac. N. B. 1038; Buck v. Buck, 60 111. 69; "Weeks v. Smith, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. 105; U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724; S. Y.) 211; Verplank v. Hall, 21 Mich. v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450; Magennis § 1756 CONTEMPT. 453 contempt, except, perhaps, when they are to enforce a civil remedy, if the party charged fully answers all the charges against him, he shall be discharged on the attachment, and the court can not hear evidence to contradict his answer.*^ § 1756. When answer may be contradicted. — In a proceeding for contempt in a cause in equity, a sworn answer, however full and une- quivocal, is not conclusive. The prosecu1:ion may introduce evidence disputing such answer. ^^ § 1757. Interrogatories or affidavit. — After the accused appears upon a rule to show cause, or is brought before the court by attach- ment, he may submit to the court his own answer in the form of an affidavit, or he may demand interrogatories to be filed for him to answer. ^^ The defendant in making his defense to a charge of con- tempt, is not confined to answering the interrogatories propounded. He may make other and further defense by affidavits of himself and others disclaiming any willful intention to disobey the order of the court, showing a state of facts proving his innocence of the charge.** But where the facts constituting the contempt are admitted by the defendant, interrogatories are not required. The court may render Judgment on such admission.*^ Where the defense is purely a ques- V. Parkhurst, 4 N. J. Eq. 433; Un- S., 45 Neb. 741, 64 N. W. 221; Rose- derwood's Case, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) water v. S., 47 Neb. 630, 66 N. W. 640. 46; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 461; 4 Bl. « S. v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 453; Com. 287. See In re Snyder, 103 N. Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Y. 178, 8 N. E. 479. See § 1756. Y.) 372, 38 Am. D. 551; Jewett v. "S. V. Earl, 41 Ind. 464, 2 Green Dringer, 27 N. J. Eq. 271; P. v. Ten C. R. 680; Saunders v. Melhuish, 6 Eyck, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 617; Pitt v. Mod. 73; Matter of Moore, 63 N. C. Davison, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 97. See 397; P. V. Few, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 290; Witter v. Lyon, 34 Wis. 564; Ex 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 269; In re Cor- parte Thurmond, 1 Bailey (S. C.) bin, 8 S. C. 390; Stewart v. S., 140 605. But see In re Yates, 4 Johns, Ind. 7, 39 N. E. 508; Jackson v. (N. Y.) 317; Taylor v. Baldwin, 14 Smith, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 117; In re Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 166; In re Watson, Walker, 82 N. C. 95; Wells v. Com., 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 466. 21 Gratt. (Va.) 501. See § 1711.' «P. v. Murphy, 1 Daly (N. Y.) "U. S. V. Debs, 64 Fed. 724, 738, 462; Magennis v. Parkhurst, 4 N. citing King v. Vaughan, 2 Dougl. J. Eq. 433. 516; Underwood's Case, 2 Humph. " S. v. Brophy, 38 Wis. 413; P. v. (Tenn.) 48, 49. See § 1755. The Anthony, 40 N. Y. Supp. 279, 7 App. answers of the defendants in the Div. 132; P. v. Cartwright, 11 Hun following cases were held suflBcient (N. Y.) 362; Clapp v. Lathrop, 23 to entitle them to be discharged: How. Pr. (N. Y.) 423; Ter. v. Thier- Kane v. Haywood, 66 N. C. 1; Has- ry, 1 Mart. (O. S.) (La.) 101. See kett V. S., 51 Ind. 176; S. v. Vincent, Burke v. Ter., 2 Okla. 499, 37 Pac. 46 Kan. 618, 620, 26 Pac. 939; Darby 829; Whittem v. S., 86 Ind. 196. V. College, 72 Ga. 212; Percival v. 454 hughes' criminal law. § 1758 tion of law and not of fact, the court, being in possession of all the facts, may dispose of the proceeding without interrogatories." § 1758. Interrogatories, amendable. — ^Interrogatories may be amended for the purpose of explaining an ambiguity or calling out of a fuller answer, and additional ones may be filed.** § 1759. Court compelling oral answers. — After the accused had answered the charge of contempt in writing, the court, over his ob- jection, compelled him to answer, orally, numerous questions pro- pounded by the court concerning the alleged contempt, to which ex- ception was taken ; and after such oral examination the court adjudged him guilty of contempt and assessed a fine against him : Held reversi- ble error.^" § 1760. Husband conveying property. — On the trial of a contempt proceeding against a husband for his failure to obey an order requiring him to pay alimony, it is competent to prove that he conveyed his property to his daughter and son-in-law, as tending to show whether he is or is not able to comply with the order of the court.^'^ § 1761. Previous acts of contempt. — Evidence of other previous acts of contempt is not competent, ordinarily, but where the defendant attempts to make it appear that his act was an innocent mistake, then evidence of other acts of contempt may be admitted to disprove iimo- cent intent.^^ § 1762. Executor's agreement with party. — An executor on a charge of contempt for a failure to comply with an order of the court as to distribution offered to show that he had previously paid a note on which he was surety, and that the distributee agreed that he might deduct the amount, so paid by him, out of money found to be due the distributee on final settlement : Held error to refuse the offered evi- denced^ "Smith v. Waalkes, 109 Mich. 16, "Wilson v. S., 57 Ind. 71, 2 Am. 66 N. W. 679. C. R. 182. "S. V. Matthews, 37 N. H. 453; "Stuart v. Stuart, 123 Mass. 370. Herring v. Tylee, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. '^Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 38 Y.) 31; P. V. Brown, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) Conn. 121. 41. »' Blake v. P., 161 111. 74, 43 N. B. 590. § 1763 CONTEMPT. 455 § 1763. Damages, amount may be shown. — On a charge of con- tempt for violating an injunction, the amonilt of damages sustained by the complaining party is a proper subject of inquiry.^* § 1764. Contempt before master. — According to the usual practice in chancery, an attachment against a witness for contempt committed before a master or examiner requires an application to the court recit- ing the questions which the witness refused to answer, and asking instructions from the court.^^ § 1765. Practice and procedure in taking evidence. — Where the defendant appears and denies the alleged contempt, the chancellor will refer disputed questions of fact to a master or clerk to take the proofs on the issues joined and make his report to the court, or the court may in its discretion proceed with the cause without such ref- erence.^" In trying a contempt case, the court may adopt such mode of procedure as it deems proper which is not violative of the defend- ant's rights and opportunity to make his defense.^^ § 1766. Trial, in absence of defendant. — Where the defendant has been served with the rule to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and fails to appear on the day set for hearing, the court may proceed in his absence to a final order adjudging him guilty of eontempt.^^ If the accused do not appear at the day appointed for the hearing of the charge of contempt, or if he appear and do not deny the alleged misconduct, the court will at once proceed to make a iinal decision, and if the court iinds the accused guilty of the contempt charged it will award the proper punishment.^* " Harteau v. Stone Co., 3 T. & C. ■"■ Albany Bank v. Schermerhorn, 9 (N. Y.) 763; Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Paige (N. Y.) 372, 38 Am. D. 551; Rogers, 38 Conn. 121; In re South Robins v. Frazier, 61 Tenn. 100; Side R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 13,190. Aldinger v. Pugh, 57 Hun 181, 10 The evidence in the following cases N. Y. Supp. 684; P. v. Alexander, 3 was held not sufficient to warrant Hun (N. Y.) 211. See Conover v. convictions: Dobbs v. S., 55 Ga. 272; Wood, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 84. Burdick v. Marshall, 8 S. D. 308, 66 " Ex parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267. N. W. 462; Dinsmoor v. Commercial 9 S. Ct. 699. Trav. Assn., 14 N. Y. Supp. 676, 60 '^ Jordan v. Circuit Court, 69 Iowa Hun 576; In re Patterson, 99 N. C. 177, 28 N. W. 548. See Albany Bank 407, 6 S. E. 643. Evidence sufficient: v. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Y.) Aldinger v. Pugh, 57 Hun 181, 10 372, 38 Am. D. 551; Freeman v. City N. Y. Supp. 684. of Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 66 N. W. 928; "Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 118, S. v. Becht, 23 Minn. 411; S. v. Mat- 120; 2 Daniel Chan. Pr., 1178, 1198; thews, 37 N. H. 450. Heard v. Pierce, 8 Cush. (Mass.) °°5 Cr. L. Mag. 506, citing S. v. 338. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450, 456; Bank v. 456 hughes' criminal law. § 1767 Article X. Sentence; Judgment. § 1767. Commitment is execution. — Contempt of court is a specific criminal offense. It is punished sometimes by indictment and some- times by a summary proceeding. In either mode of trial the adjudi- cation against the offender is a conviction, and the commitment, in consequence, is execution.^" § 1768. Commitment for failure to pay. — ^Where a party is com- mitted by order of the court for his failure to do some act or to pay ali- mony as directed, the fine and costs and the amount of the ahmony should be stated in the order of eommitment.^^ § 1769. Commitment, sufficiency. — Where a witness refuses to an- swer proper questions before a grand jury, the matter should be re- ported to the court. And, as a basis for a lawful commitment, the order of commitment should set out the subject-matter which the grand jury was inquiring into, that the witness was duly sworn to answer questions relating to such inquiry, the questions propounded to him, and his refusal to answer them.*^ Where a witness is com- mitted for contempt for refusing to testify, the questions asked and refused to be answered must be stated in the order of commitment.*' But it has been held sufficient to recite the facts without setting out the particular questions propounded to the witness.** § 1770. Facts constituting contempt. — The facts constituting con- tempt need not be recited in judgments or sentences rendered by superior courts of record.*^ Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 372; "Wilcox v. S., 46 Neb. 402, 64 N. Kernoelle v. Cason, 25 Ind. 362; W. 1072. Barclay v. Barclay, 184 111. 471, 56 " In re Jones, 6 Civ. Free. (N. T.) N. B. 821. 250. "Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. St. 9, "Baston v. S., 39 Ala. 552. See 67 Am. D. 374; Cartwright's Case, Ex parte Summers, 5 Ired. L. (N. 114 Mass. 230; Ex parte Kearney, 7 C.) 149; Ex parte Henshaw, 73 Cal. Wheat. (U. S.) 38. 486, 15 Pac. 110; S. v. Miller, 23 W. "Jernee v. Jernee, 54 N. J. Eq. Va. 801; Davison's Case, 13 Abb. Pr. 657, 35 Atl. 458; Sherwood v. Sher- (N. Y.) 129; Seaman v. Duryea, 11 wood, 32 Conn. 1; P. v. Grant, 50 N. Y. 324; In re Muller, 67 Hun 34, Hun 243, 3 N. Y. Supp. 142. 21 N. Y. Supp. 678; Whitney v. •^Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 181; Wil- Whitney, 58 N. Y. Supr. 335. Con- cox V. S., 46 Neb. 402, 64 N. W. 1072. tra. In re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, U See Ex parte Woodworth, 29 W. L. S. E. 244; S. v. Galloway, 45 Tenn. B. (Ohio) 315; Ex parte McKee, 18 326, 98 Am. I). 404; Butterfield v. Mo. 599. O'Connor, 3 Ohio D. R. 34; Com. v. Perkins, 124 Pa. St. 36, 18 Atl. 525. § 1771 CONTEMPT. 457 § 1771. Commitment, contents of. — As a proper basis for an order committing a witness for contempt, in refusing to obey a subpena duces tecum to produce a certain book or paper to be used in evidence in & cause, the mittimus must describe the book or paper required, and that it was pertinent evidence in the cause and under the control and withheld by the witness at the time the subpena was served upon him ; and also that the court gave him time to produce the book.°° § 1772. Committed until complying. — Where the court resorts to contempt proceedings and commits the contemner to enforce an order to do a particular act within his power to perform, imprisonment until he does comply with the order is valid. The defendant can only escape indefinite imprisonment by complying with the order.*^ § 1773. Committed until fine paid. — Where a fine has been imposed as the punishment for contempt of court, the contemner may be com- mitted until the fine is paid, or he may be required to work out the fine as in other criminal cases.** The court on imposing a fine for contempt may order that the contemner shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.**^ § 1774. Committed until — SufB.ciency. — ^Where the court in a civil contempt proceeding orders the defendant to pay a stated sum of money as an indemnity to the adverse party, and that he stand com- mitted until the same shall be paid, without designating it as a fine, such order is not irregular.** § 1775. Commitment held regular. — The evidence heard upon the motion to commit the respondent for contempt was sufficient to justify "In re Sims, 4 W. L. B. (Ohio) Home See. v. S., 57 Neb. 765, 78 N. 457. "W. 267. "In re Stelnert, 29 Hun 301; Ex »= Sinnott v. S., 11 Lea (Tenn.) parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 26 Pac. 281; Shore v. P., 26 Colo. 516, 59 914. See P. v. Tamsen, 40 N. Y. Pac. 49. Supp. 1047, 17 N. Y. Misc. 212; P. v. "ain re Burrows, 33 Kan. 675, 7 Fancher, 4 T. & C. (N. Y.) 467; In Pac. 148; In re Tyler, 64 Cal. 434, 1 re Whitmore, 9 Utah 441, 35 Pac. Pac. 884; Ex parte Crittenden, 62 524; P. V. Davidson, 35 Hun "(N. Y.) Cal. 534; Lanpher v. Dewell, 56 Iowa 471; In re Clarke, 125 Cal. 388, 58 153, 9 N. W. 101; Steele v. Gunn, 49 Pac. 22; In re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. Hun 610, 3 N. Y. Supp. 692 ; Ex parte 581. 63 N. "W. 1065, 64 N. "W. 299; Sweeney, 18 Nev. 74, 1 Pac. 379; Cromartie v. Comrs., 85 N. C. 211^ Newton v. Locklin, 77 111. 103. Ex parte Latimer, 47 Cal. 131; S. v. "°Poertner v. Russel, 33 Wis. 193; Knight, 3 S. D. 509, 54 N. W. 412, 44 P. v. Anthony, 40 N. Y. Supp. 279, Am. R. 809; Nebraska Children's 7 App. Div. 132. 458 hughes' criminal law. § 1775 the order that he stand committed to the common jail of the county to answer for his contempt, and that he remain in custody until he comply with the order of the court ; and among other things that he fully and truly submit to examination and testify and discover to the receiver before the master concerning his assets and property in his possession or under his control, and account for and turn over to the receiver the $7,500 found in his possession and under his controL Judgment sustained.^" § 1776. Result if order set aside. — The judgment in a civil con- tempt proceeding is a judgment in a civil case, and if the order to which the civil contempt proceedings attached as an incident is set aside for any cause, the proceedings in civil contempt fall with it. But they will not fall in case of criminal contempt.'^ § 1777. Witness committed until he answers. — A witness before a grand jury, on being convicted of contempt for refusing to answer proper questions before that body, may be committed to jail until he shall answer; and a discharge of the grand jury or adjournment of the court will not give him the right to be released on bail.'^ § 1778. When to be discharged. — Where a person stands commit- ted for the non-payment of a fine in a contempt proceeding, or for a failure to pay over money as directed by the court, he is entitled to his discharge under the insolvent statute, or on a satisfactory showing of insolvency.''^ § 1779. Imprisonment not for debt. — Where a person is committed for contempt of court in failing to pay alimony in a divorce suit, as required by the decree of the court, such commitment is not impris- onment for debt.^* " Berkson v. P.. 154 111. 81, 39 N. In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580, 17 Pac. E. 1079; P. V. Anthony, 40 N. Y. 698; Van Wezel v. Van Wezel, 1 Supp. 279, 7 App. Div. 132. Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 113. But see " S. v. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 Hanks v. Workman, 69 Iowa 600, 29 S. E. 52, citing Pelzer v. Hughes, N. W. 628. 27 S. C. 408, 3 S. B. 781. » O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 69 '^Ex parte Renshaw, 6 Mo. App. 111. 552; Barclay v. Barclay, 184 111. 474; Ex parte Harris, 4 Utah 5, 5 471, 56 N. B. 821; Blake v. P., 80 111. Pac. 129. Contra, Ex parte Maulshy, 11; Potts v. Potts, 68 Mich. 492, 36 13 Md. 625. N. W. 240; Ex parte Hart, 94 Cal. "Pierce v. S., 54 Kan. 519, 38 Pac. 254, 29 Pac. 774; Staples v. Staples, 812; Standley v. Harrison, 26 Ga. 87 Wis. 592, 58 N. W. 1036; Harris 139; S. V. Livingston, 4 Del. Ch. 264; v. Bridges, 57 Ga. 407, 24 Am. R. § 1780 CONTEMPT. 459 § 1780. Void judgment. — ^An order or judgment of a court acting ■within its jurisdiction punishing a party or person for contempt of its authority can not be reviewed or annulled by another court; but if a court, having no jurisdiction over the parties or the subject-matter before it, sentences a party, or a witness or other person, to imprison- ment for contempt, the person thus illegally deprived of his liberty may be released by any court authorized to issue writs of habeas corpusP § 1781. Indefinite commitment is void. — If an order of commit- ment be for an indefinite time it will be void; as, for instance, to commit the accused on a charge of contempt "until the further order of the court."'® An order that the defendant stand committed in the county jail until the further order of the court is void, as being too indefinite.''' But if the order be that the contemner shall stand com- mitted until he complies with the order of the court to pay alimony, specifying the amount, or the performance of some act which the court has jurisdiction to exact, the judgment will not be void, but valid.'* § 1782. Judgment without notice, void. — The court in proceeding against a party and adjudging him guilty of contempt, in his absence, and without any attempt to give him notice, commits error.'® The judge has no power at chambers to punish for contempts, and the entry of such order is void.*" 405; Zimmerman v. Zimmsrman, 113 S., 36 Ind. 196, 216. Compare Ex N. C. 432, 18 S. E. 334; Murray v. parte Smith, 40 Tex. Cr. 179, 49 S. Murray, 84 Ala. 363, 4 So. 239; W. 396; McDonald v. P., 86 111. App. Lewis V. Lewis, 80 Ga. 706, 6 S. E. 223. 918, 12 Am. R. 281; Andrews v. ''Jernee v. Jernee, 54 N. J. Eq. Andrews, 69 111. 609; Wightman v. 657, 35 Atl. 458; Chapel v. Hull, 60 Wlghtman, 45 111. 167; Long v. Mc- Mich. 167, 26 N. W. 874; Ex parte Lean, 88 N. C. 3; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Crittenden, 62 Cal. 534; Forrest v. Conn. 185. Contra,- Coughlin v. Eh- Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 16, 29 Atl. 215 ; lert, 39 Mo. 285. Cromartie v. Bladen, 85 N. C. 211; "Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 Kernodle v. Cason, 25 Ind. 362; S. S. Ct. 724; Ex parte Perkins, 29 Fed. v. Irwin, 30 W. Va. 405, 4 S. E. 413; 908; In re Morton, 10 Mich. 208. Matter of Allen, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) "P. V. Pirfenbrink, 96 111. 68; In 271; P. v. Tamsen, 17 Misc. (N. Y.) re Leach, 51 Vt. 630; Matter of "Wat- 212, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1047. son, 5Lans. (N. Y.) 466; S.V.Myers, "Ex parte Langdon, 25 Vt. 680, 44 Iowa 580; S. v. Voss, 80 Iowa 682; Ex parte Ireland, 38 Tex. 344. 467, 45 N. W. 898; Ex parte Kearby, See Middlebrook v. S., 43 Conn. 257; 35 Tex. Cr. 531, 34 S. W. 635; Yates Ward v. Ward, 70 Vt. 430, 41 Atl. V. P., 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 337; Matter 435. of Hammel, 9 R. I. 248. ™ S. v. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 "P. v. Pirfenbrink, 96 III. 68; P. S. E. 52; In re Barnhouse, 60 Kan. V. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; Whittem v. 849, 58 Pac. 480. 460 HUGHKS' CRIMINAL LAW. § 1783 § 1783. Committing before judgment — Void. — A judgment should be rendered or ordered to be entered adjudging the party to be in con- tempt, before the court is authorized to issue an order of commit- ment.*^ § 1783a, Commiting on oral order. — Committing the accused on the oral order of the court, without first issuing an order of commit- ment, is unlawful and void.*^ § 1784. Excessive punishment. — If the court inflicts a punishment in excess of that allowed by law, the judgment will be void.*' § 1785. Committing without allowing defense. — Committing a person to jail and punishing him for contempt for refusing to pay money into court, as ordered, without giving him the right to be heard, is error.'* § 1786. Judgment in alternative. — A person can not be in con- tempt of court for a failure to pay money, until he disobeys the order. Therefore an order to pay or stand committed is improper. The order to stand committed can not be entered until a failure to pay the money.*' A judgment should not be in the alternative; as where the court sentenced the defendant "to pay a fine of forty doUars and in default thereof be imprisoned thirty days.'"" § 1787. Order of commitment void. — Under a statute requiring the evidence in a contempt proceeding to be reduced to writing and filed, an order committing the defendant before this is done is void, and a «Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477, parte Langdon, 25 Vt. 680; S. v. 30 S. W. 158; In re Crosher, 11 N. Y. Judges, 32 La. 1256. Supp. 504, 25 Abb. N. C. 89. See Ex »» First Nat. Bank v. Pitzpatrick, parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. 531, 34 80 Hun 75, 30 N. Y. Supp. 15. See S. W. 635. Tolleson v. People's Sav. Bank, 85 ^ Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. Ga. 171, 11 S. E. 599. 531, 34 S. W. 635. "^ In re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, U «= In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411; Mat- S. E. 244; Turner v. Smith, 90 Mich, ter of Patterson, 99 N. C. 407, 6 S. 309, 51 N. W. 282. See Clements v. E. 643; Ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla. Tillman, 79 Ga. 451, 5 S. B. 194, 11 174; In re Jacobs, 5 Hun (N. Y.) Am. St. 441. Compare P. v. Sickles, 428. See P. v. Jacobs, 66 N. Y. 8. 59 Hun 342, 13 N. Y. .Supp. 101; ^ " Cunningham v. Colonial Mortg. re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. 581, 63 N. W. Co., 67 Kan. 678, 47 Pac. 830; Ex 1065, 64 N. W. 299. § 1788 CONTEMPT. 461 subsequent filing of the evidence will not give validity to the order of committal.*' § 1788. Modifying order of commitment. — ^The court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine, and also committed him to imprisonment for five days. After the defendant had served the five days, the court at- tempted to modify the order in reference to the payment of the fine : Held that the court had no authority to do so.'* § 1789. Judgment void — ^Habeas corpus. — ^Where the trial or in- ferior court acts without jurisdiction in committing a person on a charge of contempt, a court of review will always give relief by habeas corpus}^ But if the court in committing a person for contempt had jurisdiction in the premises, a court of review will refuse to enter- tain a writ of habeas corpus to correct mere errors.** Article XI. Punishment; Penalty. § 1790. Extent of punishment — Discretionary. — The extent of punishment for contempt, that is, the amount of the fine imposed or time of imprisonment, is in the sole discretion of the court."^ The court in assessing a fine or fixing the term of imprisonment as a pun- ishment for contempt, will be governed by the nature of the act con- stituting the contempt, whether willful or not, the damage resulting to the opposite party, the interests involved or affected, and the like."^ "Dorgan V. Granger, 76 Iowa 156, "Clark v. P., Breese (111.) 340; 40 N. W. 697. In re Bissell, 40 Mich. 63; Shattuck "» In re Barry, 94 Cal. 562, 29 Pac. v. S., 51 Miss. 50, 24 Am. R. 624; Ex 1109. parte Holman, 28 Iowa 88, 4 Am. R. ''P. V. O'Neil, 47 Cal. 109; Ex 159; Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 158. parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477, 30 S. W. ^ Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 38 158. See Cooper v. P., 13 Colo. 337, Conn. 121. See P. v. Delvecchio, 18 373, 22 Pac. 790; P. v. Owens, 8 N. Y. 352; Livingston v. Swift, 23 Utah 20, 28 Pac. 871; Wyatt v. P., 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1. Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; S. v. Fagin, ""In re North Bloomfield Gravel 28 La. 887; In re Havlik, 45 Neb. Min. Co., 27 Fed. 795; In re Klug- 747, 64 N. W. 234; P. v. Grant, 13 man, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 484; Scott Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 308; Ex parte v. City of Detroit, 59 Mich. 43, 26 Lawler, 28 ' Ind. 241; Ex parte N. W. 220, 791; De Beaukelaer v. P., Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. 531, 34 S. W. 25 111. App. 460 (excessive): Miller 635; P.V.Thomas, 3 Hill (N.Y.) 169; v. P., 10 111. App. 400 (excessive); Jamison v. S., 37 Ark. 445, 40 Am. Des Moines St. R. Co. v. Des Moines R. 103; Matter of Cameron, 44 Kan. Broad-Gauge St. R. Co., 74 Iowa 585, 64, 24 Pac. 90; Com. v. McDufEy, 126 38 N. W. 496; P. v. Bouchard, 27 Mass. 467. Contra, P. v. Smith, 5 N. Y. Supp. 201, 6 Misc. 459; In re Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 490. Cartwright, 114 Mass. 230; S. v. 462 hughes' criminal law. § 1791 § 1791. Pine may equal damages. — A party to a cause, or other person causing damage to the adverse party, by violating an injunction or other order of the court, may, under the statute, be fined to the extent of such damage, with costs, as an indemnity to the injured party.°^ But if the injunction or restraining order be wrongfully procured and one which ought not to have been granted, the party, though guilty of contempt, can not be required to make good any loss sustained by the adverse party, especially where the granting of the in^ junction proved to be the means of damage to the party charged with contempt. °* § 1792. Costs ; counsel fees included. — In some jurisdictions coun- sel fees in the contempt proceeding, and costs, incurred by the injured party, may be taxed as part of the fine imposed against the defendant as a punishment for contempt.®' §1793. Discharged on paying costs. — Where a party stands in contempt of court for his failure to do or not to do some particular act as ordered by the court, and an attachment issues for his arrest to answer to a charge of contempt, he, on appearing and showing that Knight, 3 S. Dak. 509, 54 N. W. 412, Wis. 411; Johns v. Davis, 2 Rob. 44 Am. St. 809; Bate Refrig. Co. v. (Va.) 729; P. v. Van Buren, 136 N. Gillett, 30 Fed. 683; Iowa Barb Steel Y. 252, 32 N. B. 775, 63 Hun 635, 18 Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed Wire N. Y. Supp. 734; Chapel v. Hull, 60 Co., 30 Fed. 615; S. v. Sparks, 27 Tex. Mich. 167, 26 N. W. 874; Matthews 705; U. S. V. Kane, 23 Fed. 748; Sul- v. Spangenberg, 15 Fed. 813; Wells llvan V. Judah, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 444; Fargo & Co. v. Oreg. Ry. & Nav. Co., Morss V. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 19 Fed. 20, 9 Sawy. 601; De Jonge 38 Fed. 482; P. v. St. Louis, etc., v. Brenneman, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 332. R. Co., 19 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 1; Com. But contra, see Falk v. Flint, 12 R. I. V. Sheehan, 81Pa. St. 132; InreMor- 14; Eads v. Brazelton, 22 Ark. 499, ris, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 167; Albertson 55 Am. D. 88. See Levan v. Third V. The P. I. Nevius, 48 Fed. 927; District Court (Idaho), 43 Pac. 574. Button v. Lockridge, 21 W. Va. 254 "Kaehler v. Dobberpuhl, 56 Wis. (costs); In re Moore, 63 N. C. 397 497, 14 N. W. 631; Wandling v. ' (costs); McQuade v. Emmons, 38 N. Thompson, 41 N. J. L. 142; Kaehler J. L. 397; In re Tift, 11 Fed. 463; v. Halpin, 59 Wis. 40, 17 N. W. 868. Power v. Athens, 19 Hun (N. Y.) ""Whitman v. Haines, 4 N. Y. 165; Nieuwankamp v. Ullman, 47 Supp. 48, 51 Hun 640; Van Valken- Wls. 168, 2 N. W. 131. burgh v. Doollttle, 4 Abb. N. C. (N. ""Meyer v. Dreyspring, 23 N. Y. Y.) 72; S. v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695, 27 Supp. 315, 3 Misc. 560; In re Morris, Pac. 148; Brett v. Brett, 33 Hun 13 Civ. Proc. (N.Y.) 56; Albany City (N. Y.) 547; Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Bank V. Schermerhorn, 9 Paige (N. Fed. 920. Corairo, O'Rourke v. Cleve- Y.) 372, 38 Am. D. 551; Stephenson land, 49 N. J. Eq. 577, 25 Atl. 367, 31 V. Hanson, 67 How Pr. (N. Y.) 305, Am. R. 719; S. v. Irwin, 8 Blackf. 6 Civ. Proc. 43; Martin Cantine Co. (Ind.) 567; Powers v. Athens, 19 V. Warshauer, 28 N. Y. Supp. 139, Hun (N. Y.) 165. 23 Civ. Proc. 379; In re Pierce, 44 § 1794 CONTEMPT. 463 he has complied or is ready to comply with the order, may have the proceeding dismissed on the payment of eosts.^® § 1794. Striking answer, unauthorized. — The supreme court of the District of Columbia has no authority to strike the defendant's answer from the files, "for contempt," and give judgment for the plaintiff by default, for want of answer. The only punishment that the court can inflict for contempt is limited by statute to a fine or imprison- ment. °^ § 1795. Several acts — One punishment. — Several acts of contempt committed in the same transaction, at the same time, are but a single offense, such as the refusal of a witness to answer numerous ques- tions on the same point of inquiry. The court has jurisdiction in such case to impose but one penalty, and not several penalties for each refusal of the witness to answer.'* Article XII. Appeal; Writ oe Error. § 1796. Review not allowed. — Under the common law, a judgment in a contempt proceeding rendered by a court of competent jurisdic- tion is final, and can not be reviewed by a court of review."' In the review of a judgment in a contempt case in the state of Colorado, the only question that can be investigated is the jurisdiction of the court.^"" See the following cases holding that no appeal can be taken from a judgment in a contempt cause :^ But there are many cases to the contrary. See the following:^ .2 =° Vincent v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 602; 'Natoma "Water, etc., Co. v. Han- East New Brunswick & N. B. Turn- cock (Cal.), 36 Pac. 100; In re Coop- pike Co. v. Raritan River R. Co. (N. er, 32 Vt. 253; S. v. Towle, 42 N. H. J. L.), 18 Atl. 670; Wallis v. Tal- 540; In re Whitmore, 9 Utah 441, 35 madge, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 443. See Pac. 524; Hunter v. S., 6 Ind. 423; P. V. Miller, 29 N. Y. Supp. 305, 9 Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 303; S. v. Misc. 1. Judge Civil District Court, 40 La. "Hovey v. Elliott, 145 N. Y. 126, 434, 4 So. 131; In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 39 N. E. 841. 541, 11 Pac. 240; Phillips v. Welch, '^ Maxwell v. Rives, 11 Nev. 213. 12 Nev. 158; P. v. Owens, 8 Utah 20, See S. V. Judge of Civil District 28 Pac. 871; Currier v. Mueller, 79 Court, 47 La. 701, 17 So. 288. Com- Iowa 316, 44 N. W. 555; In re Vance, pare O'Rourke v. Cleveland, 49 N. J. 88 Cal. 262, 26 Pac. 101; Teller v. P., Eq. 577, 25 Atl. 367, 31 Am. R. 719. 7 Colo. 451, 4 Pac. 48. ■'Watson V. Williams, 36 Miss. " Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. B. 331; Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 387, 37 N. E. 1004, 41 Am. St. 375; 393, 26 Am. R. 471. Haines v. P., 97 111. 161; S. v. Allen, ™ Bloom V. P., 23 Colo. 416, 48 14 Wash. 684, 45 Pac. 644; Boon v. Pac. 519; Percival v. S., 45 Neb. 741, McGucken, 67 Hun 251, 22 N. Y. 64 N. W. 221, 50 Am. R. 568. Supp. 424; Rawson v. Rawson, 35 464 hughes' criminal law, § 1797 § 1797. Appeals: writ of error. — The court will entertain appeals from a judgment or order in contempt proceedings because of its ap- pellate jurisdiction in criminal cases.^ Contempt cases may be re- viewed on writ of error by a court of review.* § 1798. In civil contempt, appeal allowed. — In some jurisdiction^ if the contempt proceeding comes within the civil class of contempts, an appeal lies from the final order as in other civil cases, or a writ of error will lie.° But the people can not prosecute an appeal or writ of error, a contempt case being in the nature of a criminal proceeding.' A contempt proceeding instituted for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the opposite party, such as to compel the payment of money to him, is civil in its nature. An appeal lies from a judgment for contempt in such proceeding.'' § 1799. Prosecution may appeal. — In Illinois, the people, as well as the defendant, may take an appeal in contempt proceedings which are civil in their nature, though brought in the name of the people.* § 1800. Appeal not allowed. — Where a person is adjudged guilty of contempt committed in the presence of the court, he can not take an appeal; but otherwise, if committed out of the presence of the court.* § 1801. Appeal from final order. — In contempt proceedings, where an appeal is allowed by law, such appeal must be from a final order 111. App. 507; Leopold v. P., 140 111. v. Jones, 114 111. 147, 28 N. E. 464; 552, 30 N. B. 348; Haines v. Haines, Walton v. Beveling, 61 111. 206; P. v. 35 Mich. 138; Brinkley v. Brinkley, Diedrich, 141 111. 669, 30 N. E. 1038. 47 N. Y. 40; Baldwin v. Miles, 58 "P. v. Neill, 74 111. 68. Conn. 496, 20 Atl. 618; S. v. Newton, 'Snow v. Snow. 13 Utah 15, 43 62 Ind. 517; In re Daves, 81 N. Pac. 620; S. v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, C. 72; Warner v. S., 81 Tenn. 52. 63 N. W. 169; S. v. Giles, 10 Wis. 'S. V. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 S. 101; Hagerman v. Tong Lee, 12 Nev. E. 52. See Wyatt v. P., 17 Colo. 252, 331; S. v. Horner, 16 Mo. App. 191. 28 Pac. 961; S. v. Knight, 3 S. D. See S. v. Dent, 29 Kan. 416. 509, 54 N. W. 412. » P. v. Weigley, 155 111. 491, 40 N. •Haines v. P., 97 111. 167; Bowers E. 300; P. v. Diedrich, 141 111. 665, V. Green, 1 Scam. (111.) 42; Stokeley 30 N. E. 1038; Lester v. P., 150 111. V. Com., 1 Va. Cas. 330; Stuart v. 408, 23 N. B. 387, 37 N. E. 1004, 41 P., 3 Scam. (111.) 395; Yates v. P., Am. R. 375. 6 Johns. (N.Y.) 337; Ex parte Lang- »S. v. Woodfin, 5 Ired. (N. C.) don, 25 Vt. 680; S. v. Davis, 18 Ohio 199, 42 Am. D. 161; Brooks v. Flem- C. C. 479. ing, 53 Tenn. 331; Brizendine v. S., "Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 23 N. E. 103 Tenn. 677, 54 S. W. 982; In re 387, 37 N. E. 1004, 41 Am. R. 375; Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, 11 S. B. 244. Blake v. Blake, 80 111. 525; Tolman §1802 CONTEMPT. 465 in the case. An order adjudging a person to be in contempt, without fixing the penalty, is not inal.^" An order reciting that "the court now assesses a fine of $100 against the defendant, reserving the right to remit all or any part of said fine at any time before the final dispo- sition of the cause," is not a final order from which an appeal can be taken." § 1802. Action by court of review. — The action of the court in instituting contempt proceedings and inflicting punishment for a vio- lation of its orders, is discretionary with the court, and will not be interfered with by a court of review in the absence of a clear abuse of such discretion.^^ § 1803. Determining jurisdiction. — ^When necessary to determine the jurisdictional facts in contempt proceedings, the court will not be limited to the record'itself , but will inquire into the evidence not in the record.^' " ' § 1804. Power to pardon. — The power of the president of the United States to grant pardons for "offenses" includes contempts of the court, either civil or criminal contempts.^* And the governor of a state, also, has the same pardoning power in such cases.^^ "Springfield v. Edwards, 84 111. 627, 634; Menage v. Lustfleld, 30 Minn. 487, 16 N. "W. 398; Schwab v. Coots, 44 Mich. 463, 7 N. W. 61; Sercomb v. Catlin, 128 111. 556, 21 N. E. 606, 15 Am. R. 147; Buel v. Street, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 443; Semrow V. Semrow, 26 Minn. 9, 46 N. W. 446; McEwen v. McBwen, 55 111. App. 340. " Home Electric, etc., Co. v. Globe, etc., Co., 145 Ind. 174, 44 N. E. 191; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40. •^Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138; Williams v. Lampkin, 53 Ga. 200; Tucker v. Keen, 60 Ga. 410; Brown V. Brown, 4 Ind. 627, 58 Am. D. 641; Cochrane v. Ingersoll, 73 N. Y. 613; Murray v. Berry, 113 N. C. 46, 18 S. B. 78; S. V. Archer, 48 Iowa 310; Wakefield v. Moore, 65 Ga. 268; How- ard V. Burand, 36 Ga. 346, 91 Am. D. 767. " Schwarz v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. 106, 43 Pac. 580. "In re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.), 23; Drayton Case, 5 Op. Att.-Gen, 574; Dixon's Case, 3 Op. Att.-Gen. 622. '"Ex parte Hickey, 4 S. & M. (Miss.) 751; S. v. Sauvinet, 24 La. 119, 13 Am. R. 115. Contra, Taylor V. Goodrich (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 515. hughes' c. l.— 30 CHAPTEE XL. COMPOUNDING OFFENSES. ^RT. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1805-1806 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1807-1811 III. Indictment, §§ 1812-1813 Article I. Definition and Elements. '§ 1805. Compounding defined. — If a person injured receives any- thing of value in consideration of agreeing to stifle crimiual proceed- ings, he puts himself in a position to hinder the administration of justice, and his act in thus agreeing not to prosecute may constitute the crime of compounding a criminal ofEense.^ Compounding a crime consists in taking goods or other amends on an agreement not to prose- cute. Compounding a felony is, at common law, equally criminal with the felony, and is also a misdemeanor against public justice. The material facts are knowledge of the actual commission of a crime, the taking of the money or property of another, and the intent to conceal or compound the felony." § 1806. Compromise — ^When allowed. — ^By statutory provision in some of the states, minor offenses may be compromised where made by approval of the court in which pending.' Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1807. Promise to repay, no offense. — A mere promise to pay or repay money embezzled is not an agreement to compound the offense. M Bl. Com. 133. Lo'vett, 11 Cox C. C. 602; S. v. Hun- = Underbill Cr. Ev., § 458, citing ter, 14 La. 71. _ 4 Bl. Com. 136; P. v. Bryon, 103 Cal. * Smith v. Crego, 7 N. T. Supp. 86, 675, 37 Pac. 754. 54 Hun 22. See Treadwell v. Tor- ^McDaniel v. S., 27 Ga. 197; Geier bert, 122 Ala. 297, 25 So. 216. V. Shade, 109 Pa. St. 180; Reg. v. (466) § 1808 COMPOUNDING OFFENSES. 467 § 1808. Breaking compounding agreement. — The fact that the per- son with whom the defendant compounded an offense afterwards, in violation of his agreement, instituted a prosecution for the offense so compounded, is no defense to the charge of compounding such ofEense.^ § 1809. That offense had been committed not essential. — That an offense had actually been committed by the person from whom the money or other consideration was received is not essential.® § 1810. Agent only — No defense. — ^It is no defense to a charge of compounding a criminal offense that the defendant acted as the agent of another and received no benefit himself.'' § 1811. Giving promissory note. — The giving of a promissory note as the consideration for compromising a criminal offense is sufficient to constitute the offense, even though such note can not be collected by law.* Article III. Indictment. § 1812. Indictment suflacient. — Under a statute making it a crim- inal offense for any "person who, having knowledge of the actual com- mission of a crime, takes money or property of another," under an agreement to settle or conceal such offense, an information or indict- ment charging that the crime of grand larceny had been committed by a certain person (naming him), and that the defendant, knowing of the commission of said crime by said person, did receive from the person named twenty dollars, upon the agreement that the defendant would compound and conceal said crime, is sufficient.* § 1813. Knowledge, essential. — In charging a person with the offense of compounding a crime, the indictment must allege that the defendant knew of the commission of the crime so compounded.^" ' S. V. Ash, 'as Or. 86, 54 Pac. 184. ' Com. v. Pease, 16 Mass. 91; Un- ' S. V. Carver, 69 N. H. 216, 39 Atl. derhill Cr. Ev., § 458. 973; Tribly v. S., 42 Ohio St. 205; »P. v. Bryon, 103 Cal. 675, 37 Pac. Reg. v. Best, 9 C. & P. 368. See P. 754; Watt v. S., 97 Ala. 72, 11 So. v. Buckland, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 592. 901. ' S. v. Ruthven, 58 Iowa 121, 12 " S. v. Hennlng, 33 Ind. 189. N. W. 235. See S. v. Ash, 33 Or. 86, 54 Pac. 184. CHAPTEE XLI. escape; rescue. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1814-1819 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1820-1825 III. Indictment, §§ 1826-1830 IV. Evidence, § 1831 Article I. Deeinition and Elements. § 1814. Eescue defined. — ^Eescue is the forcibly and knowingly freeing another from an arrest or imprisonment; and it is generally the same offense in the stranger so rescuing as it would have been in a gaoler to have voluntarily permitted an escape.^ § 1815. Escape defined. — A person who, being a prisoner in lawful confinement or custody, regains his liberty, with or without force, prior to his legal discharge, or who, having a prisoner lawfully in his custody, suffers him to regain his liberty, before his legal discharge,, is guilty of escape.^ And persons who aid or assist are alike guilty.* § 1816. Common law offense. — At common law, and frequently by statute, a person who conveys disguises, weapons, etc., into a jail, with the intent to facilitate the escape of a prisoner, or in any way assists in an escape, is guilty of a felony.* M Bl. Com. 131; 2 McClain Cr. L., Ala. 39; Randall v. S., 53 N. J. L. § 930. 488, 22 Atl. 46; Butler v. Washburn, 'Underhill Cr. Bv., § 462; 4 Bl. 25 N. H. 251. Com. 129; Com. v. Parrell, 5 Allen 'Williams v. S., 24 Tex. App. IV, (Mass.) 130; 2 Hawk. P. C, ch. 18; 5 S. W. 655; Ash v. S., 81 Ala. 76, 1 S. V. Davis, 14 Nev. 446; S. v. Brown, So. 558. 82N. C. 585; White v. S., 13 Tex. 133; 'Underhill Cr. Ev., § 464, citing 2 McClain Cr. L., § 930; Ex parte Wilson v. S., 61 Ala. 151, 154. Cliteord, 29 Ind. 106; Floyd v. S., 79 (468) § 1817 ESCAPE ; RESCUE. 469 § 1817. Knowledge essential. — Before a person charged with the offense of unlawfully aiding a prisoner to escape can be held crim- inally liable, it must appear that the defendant knew the prisoner was in the custody of the law, and that the act done was intended to assist the prisoner in making his escape.' § 1818. Trusted prisoner escaping. — A prisoner, while serving a term of imprisonment, by making his escape when trusted by the <)ffieer to go outside the prison walls, is guilty of an escape.® Evidence that the defendant fled while outside the prison walls, on duty, is sufficient to sustain an indictment charging that the prisoner escaped from the penitentiary. The variance is not material.^ § 1819. Officer negligent is guilty. — An ofRcer having prisoners in charge who neglects to secure the doors, bolts, and locks of the jail in the way they were designed to be used, most likely to prevent prisoners from escaping, is guilty of escape.* Article II. Mattees of Defense. § 1820. Breaking jail. — If a person who is unlawfully imprisoned breaks jail and regains his liberty, he is not guilty of any criminal offense; nor is it an ofPense to assist or permit one to escape who is unlawfully imprisoned.* § 1821. Imprisoned by process of federal court. — It is a good de- fense to a charge of unlawfully aiding a prisoner to escape that the prisoner is imprisoned by virtue of process of the federal court; that he is a prisoner of the United States, though confined in a state jail.^" = S. V. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 128, 23 »Garver v. Ter., 5 Okla. 342, 49 Pac. 157; Walker v. S., 91 Ala. 32, Pac. 470; Shattuck v. S., 51 Miss. 10 So. 30; Com. v. Fllburn, 119 Mass. 575; S. v. Hunter, 94 N. C. 829. See 299; S. V. Porter, 26 Mo. 201. See also Smitt v. S., 76 Ala. 69: S. v. also Riley v. S., 16 Oonn. 47; S. v. Sparks, 78 Ind. 166; Meehan v. S., Errickson, 32 N. J. L. 421; Randall 46 N. J. L. 355. V. S., 53 N. J. L. 488, 22 Atl. 46. ' Housh v. P., 75 111. 487; P. v. Ah 'Jenks v. S., 63 Ark. 312, 39 S. Teung, 92 Cal. 421, 28 Pac. 577; S. W. 361; Newberry v. S., 7 Ohio Cir. v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; S. v. Jones, 78 T>. 622, 15 Ohio C. C. 208; N. C. 420. See S. v. Murray, 15 Me. ' Jenks v. S., 63 Ark. 312, 39 S. W. 100; S. v. Beehe, 13 Kan. 595. 361. See Com. v. Eversole, 98 Ky. '"Trammel v. S., Ill Ala. 77 20 638, 17 Ky. L. 1166, 33 S. W. 1107. So. 631. 470 hughes' criminal law. § 1822 § 1822. Officer not liable for act of assistant. — On a charge against an officer for allowing a prisoner to escape through negligence, he will not be held criminally responsible for the negligence of his assist- ant in permitting such prisoner to escape, if, in selecting and appoint- ing his assistant, he used due and proper care.^^ § 1823. Defective commitment immaterial. — It is no defense to a charge of unlawful escape that the commitment may be irregular or informal; but otherwise if the commitment is without authority and void.^^ § 1824. Arrest — ^Warrant not present. — It is no defense to the prosecution of an officer for unlawfully permitting a prisoner to escape that the officer did not have the warrant in his possession at the time of making the arrest or that it was lost.^^ § 1825. Guilt or innocence immaterial. — The guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or whether he has been indicted or not, is not ma- terial and is no defense to a charge of unlawful escape. If the pris- oner was lawfully committed and escapes or is permitted to escape, that is sufficient to constitute the offense, although he may be inno- cent.^* Aeticle III. Indictment. § 1826. Offense for whicli held, essential. — An indictment for the offense of escape should set out the criminal offense for which the defendant is imprisoned.^^ An indictment charging the offense of unlawful escape must aver in the words of the statute that the pris- oner was "confined in the jail or prison, on a charge or conviction for felony" or misdemeanor.^' "S. V. Lewis, 113 N. C. 622, 18 "S. v. Jones, 78 N. C. 420; P. v. S. E. 69. Hamaker, 92 Mich. 11, 52 N. W. 82; " S. V. James, 37 Conn. 355. S. v. Hilton, 26 Mo. 199; S. v. " Pentecost v. S., 107 Ala. 81, 18 Ritchie, 107 N. C. 857, 12 S. B. 251. So. 146. But see S. v. Johnson, 93 Mo. 73, 5 "Com. v. Miller, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) S. W. 699. 68; Holland v. S., 60 Miss. 939; S. "Trammel v. S., Ill Ala. 77, 20 v. Bates, 23 Iowa 96. See S. v. So. 631. Lewis, 19 Kan. 260, 27 Am. R. 113; S. V. Murray, 15 Me. 100. § 1827 ESCAPE ; RESCUE. 471 § 1827. Indictment bad — "TTnto." — An indictment alleging that the defendant conveyed instruments "unto" the jail instead of into the jail, with intent to procure an escape, is fatally defective.^'' § 1828, Knowledge essential. — ^Where knowledge or intent is an essential element of the offense, an indictment charging the offense should set out such knowledge or intent by proper averments.^* § 1829. Duplicity — Aided, assisted. — An indictment charging that the defendant, aided, assisted, and suffered a prisoner to escape is not bad for duplicity.^* § 1830. Indictment sufficient. — An indictment which alleges that the defendant did intentionally assist a certain prisoner to escape who was confined on a charge of misdemeanor, by drilling a hole through the walls of the jail, sufficiently states the offense, and need not aver for what purpose such drilling was done.^" Aeticle IV. Evidence. § 1831. legality of custody, burden. — If the legality of the custody of a prisoner is attacked, the burden of proof to convince the jury of the legality of the custody is upon the state.^^ " P. V. Rathbun, 105 Mich. 699, 63 =» Marshall v. S., 120 Ala. 390, 25 N. W. 973. So. 208. See generally. King v. S. "Walker v. S., 91 Ala. 32, 10 So. (Fla.), 28 So. 206. 30; Com. v. Fllburn, 119 Mass. 297. " Underhill -Cr. Ev., § 465, citing See S. V. Ritchie, lOT N. C. 857, 12 S. v. Hollon, 22 Kan. 580; S. v. S. E. 251. Jones, 78 N. C. 420; S. v. Baldwin, " Clemens v. S., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 23. 80 N. C. 391; 2 Bish. Cr. L., § 1065. CHAPTEE XLII. TAMPERING WITH WITNESS. Art. I. What Constitutes Offense, §§ 1832-1833 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1834r-1835 III. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1836-1831' Article I. What Constitutes Offense. § 1832. Common law offense. — A willful and corrupt attempt tb prevent the attendance of a witness before a lawful tribunal is an offense at common law. The essence of the offense is the attempt to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice.^ § 1833. Bribing witness to absent himself. — By statute in the state of Minnesota it is made criminal to bribe a witness to absent himself from the trial of the case in which he is a witness.'' Article II. Matters op Defense. § 1834. Intimidating witness after suit ended. — On a charge of en- deavoring to intimidate and impede a witness from attending courtj it is a good defense that the unlawful conduct of the accused in assaulting such witness took place some time after the prosecution ifi which the witness appeared against the accused, had ended.^ § 1835. "Witness not subpenaed immaterial. — That the witness whom the defendant attempted to prevent from appearing and testify- ing had not been subpenaed in some pending case is not material and no defense.* 'Underbill Cr. Ev., § 448, citing Va. 90, 94; Gandy v. S., 23 Neb. 436, S. V. Holt, 84 Me. 509, 24 Atl. 951; 36 N. W. 817. Perrow v. S., 67 Miss. 365, 7 So. 349. ' S. v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28, 73 See also S. v. Carpenter, 20 Vt. 9; S. N. W. 626. v. Ames, 64 Me. 386; Com. v. Rey- »U. S. v. Tbomas, 47 Fed. 807. nolds, 14 Gray (Mass.) 87; U. S. v. " S. v. Desforges, 47 La. 1167, 17 Kee, 39 Fed. 603; S. v. Bailer, 26 W. So. 811; S. v. Horner, 1 Marv. (Del.) (472) § 1836 TAMPERING WITH WITNESS. 473 Article III. Evidence; Variance. § 1836. Persuading witness. — On a charge of attempting by per- suasion to prevent a witness from testifying before a grand jury, it is proper to show that the defendant falsely represented that he had been sent to request the witness not to testify as such witness.^ § 1837. No variance. — Evidence that the defendant incited, aided, and advised a witness not to permit an attachment to be served on him for his default in appearing as such witness supports an indict- ment charging the defendant with aiding, advising, and inciting the witness not to obey a subpena.* 504, 26 Atl. 73, 41 Atl. 139; S. v. 'S. v. Desforges, 47 La. 1167, 17 Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 67; S. v. Holt, 84 So. 811. Me. 509, 24 Atl. 951. » Perrow v. S., 67 Miss. 365, 7 So. 349. PART FIVE OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTEE XLIII. ADULTEBATION OF FOOD. Akt. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1838-1848 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1849-1853 III. Indictment, §§ 1854-1858 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1859-1863 Aeticle I. Definition and Elements. § 1838. Common law misdemeanor. — By the common law, and also frequently by statute, the mingling of unwholesome ingredients with food, or the selling or offering for sale of adulterated or impure arti- cles of food, is a misdemeanor.^ § 1839. Food defined. — The word "food" includes anything eaten or drunk for nourishment, but under the statute is restricted to man.^ § 1840. Police power — Oleomargarine — ^Vinegar. — The manufac- ture or sale of oleomargarine, butterine, lard compounds, and the like, may be prohibited absolutely, under the police power, although such articles may not be injurious to health, when used as food.' A statute »UnderhIll Cr. Ev., § 480; S. v. 'Com. v. Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469. 30 N. B. 1127; Powell v. Com., 114 'Com. V. Hartmaa, 6 Pa. Dist. R. Pa. St. 265, 7 Atl. 913; Powell v. 136. See also Meyer v. S., 54 Ohio Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 S. Ct. St 242, 43 N. E. 164. 992, 1257; S. v. Addington, 77 Mo. (474) § 1841 ADULTERATION OP FOOD.' 475 •which forbids the sale of vinegar, or other article used as food, below a certain grade or standard, is within the police power, and the court will not declare it invalid merely because it may seem unreasonable in the test required to determine the standard of the article sold.* § 1841. Statute constitutional. — A state statute forbidding the manufacture "out of any oleaginous substance or any compounds of the same, other than that produced from unadulterated milk, or cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from unadulterated milk or cream," or who shall sell or offer to sell such adulterated article, does not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and in no manner violates any of the provisions of the constitution of the United States.^ § 1842. Sale by clerk holds principal. — An unlawful sale of imi- tation butter, made by the clerk of the defendant in his store, is a sale by the defendant, if made in the ordinary course of business.® § 1843. "Milk" includes skimmed milk, or cream. — A statute which forbids the sale of milk "to which water or any foreign sub- stance has been added," includes skimmed milk which has been colored by adding annatto to it.' The term "milk" used in a statute relating to adulteration of food is broad enough to include cream ; that is, to adulterate cream is to adulterate milk.* 110; Com. v. Shirley, 152 Pa. St. S. W. 317; Prather v. U. S., 9 App. 170, 25 Atl. 819. D. C. 82; Com. v. Proctor, 165 Mass. •P: V. Worden Grocer Co., 118 38, 42 N. E. 335; Com. v. Warren, Mich. 604, 77 N. "W. 315; Com. v. 160 Mass. 533, 36 N. B. 308. Contra, Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. Haider v. S. (Ohio Com. PI.), 4 Ohio 1127; S. V. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335, Dec. 227. And the manager, agent 38 S. W. 317; Cook v. S., 110 Ala. or servant who sells adulterated 40, 20 So. 360. See Armour Packing articles is guilty: Bissman v. S., 54 Co. V. Snyder, 84 Fed. 136; Powell Ohio St. 242, 43 N. E. 164; Meyer v. V. Com., 114 Pa. St. 265, 7 Atl. 913; S., 54 Ohio St. 242, 43 N. E. 164. But Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. if a clerk or servant sell an adul- 678, 8 S. Ct. 992, 1257, 7 Am. C. R. terated article of food, contrary to 32; S. V. Marshall, 64 N. H. 549, 15 the express instructions of his prin- Atl. 210; P. V. Girard, 145 N. Y. 105, cipal, then the principal is not 39 N. B. 823; Palmer v. S., 39 Ohio liable: Kearley v. Taylor, 17 Cox St. 236. C. C. 328. See Brown v. Foot, 61 " In re Brosnahan, 4 McCrary 1, L. J. M. C. 110. 4 Am. C. R. 16; Powell v. Com., 114 'Com. v. Wetherbee, 153 Mass Pa. St. 265, 7 Atl. 913; Powell v. 159, 26 N. E. 414. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 S. Ct. «Com. v. Gordon, 159 Mass. 8 33 992, 1257, 7 Am. C. R. 32. N. E. 709. ' S. V. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335, 38 476 hughes' criminal law. § 1344 § 1844. Adulterated drugs includes whiskey.— A statute which fop- bids the sale of adulterated food and drugs includes adulterateft whiskey and beer, whether sold as a commodity or beverage.' § 1845. Selling at meals, a violation.— Under a statute forbidding the sale of adulterated milk, a sale made by the glass at a restaurant or cafe by a servant, in the ordinary course of service, in serving meals, is within the statute.^" § 1846. Having in store nnmarked. — Having oleomargarine in a store with other articles for sale is sufficient to sustain a conviction, under a statute forbidding the "selling or offering to sell" oleomar- garine, unless the same be plainly marked, stating what it is." § 1847. Coloring vinegar. — If, in the manufacture of vinegar, it is passed through roasted malt for the sole purpose of coloring the vine- gar, and this process gives the vinegar an artificial coloring matter, it is in violation of the statute prohibiting artificial coloring of vinegar." § 1848. Inspecting herds. — ^Where a city is authorized by statute to regulate and license the sale of milk, and given power to require milk dealers to permit their herds to be inspected, from which milk is obtained, such inspection may be made, though the herds are outside the city.^* Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1849. Article sold not as genuine. — The accused by selling oleo- margenous substance, which is not made from milk and is not the product of the dairy, commits no offense under a statute forbidding the manufacture of any substance "not produced from milk or cream and not the product of the dairy, with intent to sell the same as butter made from unadulterated milk or cream," unless the sale was made with the intent to dispose of the substance as genuine butter.^* • S. V. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio 82, 46 « Weller v. S., 53 Ohio 77, 40 N. E. N. E. 71. 1001. •° Com. V. Vieth, 155 Mass. 442, 29 " S. v. Nelson. 66 Minn. 166, 68 N. E. 577; Com. v. Miller, 131 Pa. N. W. 1066. St. 118, 18 Atl. 938; Com. v. Warren, " P. v. Laning, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1057, 160 Mass. 533, 36 N. E. 308. 40 App. Div. 227. " S. V. Dunbar, 13 Or. 591, 11 Pac. 298. § 1850 ADULTERATION OP POOD. 477 § 1850. Mere possession, no offense. — Mere possession of adulter- ated milk found in a milk wagon on the street, "intended for delivery down town," is not sufficient to constitute a "sale or offer to sell" such milk, there being no evidence that such delivery was to be a sale." § 1851. Article made out of state. — It is no defense to an indict- ment charging that the defendant served oleomargarine in his restau- rant as food, that it was made in another state, where such article was not served in the original package.^* § 1852. Knowledge immaterial. — It is no defense to a charge for selling an article of adulterated food forbidden by law, that the de- fendant did not know that the article sold was below the standard and forbidden, unless knowledge of such adulterated condition of the article is made an element of the offense by statutory definition.^^ § 1853. Fancy bread— No defensc^On a charge of selling bread unlawfully it is no defense that the bread sold by the accused was fancy bread." Aeticle III. Indictment. § 1854. "Human food," not essential. — An information for a vio- lation of a statute providing "against the adulteration of food and drugs" is not required to contain an averment that the article sold or offered for sale was to be used as human food.^* § 1855. Substance used is essential. — In charging adulteration of food in violation of a statute which forbids the manufacture or sale of any adulterated food by adding any substance so as to reduce or « P. V. Wright, 43 N. Y. Supp. 290, P. v. Eddy, 12 N. Y. Supp. 628, 59 11 N. Y. Cr. 479. See P. v. Koch, 44 Hun 615; Com. v. Vleth, 155 Mass. N. Y. Supp. 387, 19 Misc. 634. 442, 29 N. B. 577; Com. v. Warren, '"Hancock v. S., 89 Md. 724, 43 160 Mass. 533, 36 N. E. 308; Sanchez Atl. 934; Rasch v. S., 89 Md. 755, 43 v. S., 27 Tex. App. 15, 10 S. W. 756; Atl. 931; S. V. Collins, 67 N. H. 540. P. v. Cipperly, 101 N. Y. 634, 4 N. E. 42 Atl. 51. See Pox v. S., 89 Md. 107. 381, 43 Atl. 775; Wright v. S., 88 " Com. v. McArthur, 152 Mass. 522, Md. 436, 41 Atl. 795. 25 N. E. 836. "P. V. Worden Grocer Co., 118 " S. v. Kelly, 54 Ohio 166, 43 N. Mich. 604, 77 N. W, 315; P. v. Snow- E. 163. berger, 113 Mich. 86, 71 N. W. 497; 478 hughes' criminal law. § 1856 injuriously affect its quality or strength, or "by substituting any cheaper or inferior substance," an indictment should allege the par- ticular substance with which the food was adulterated and the manner of such adulteration.'^'' § 1856. Animal fat or vegetable oils. — Under a statute forbidding the sale of "any article manufactured from animal fat, or animal or vegetable oils in imitation of natural butter not produced from pure milk or cream," an indictment charging the sale of two pounds of oleomargarine, sufficiently states the offense.^^ § 1857. Possession of diseased meat. — An information charging that the defendant had in his possession the meat of a diseased animal with intent to sell the same, sufficiently states the offense under a statute prohibiting any person from having "in his possession the meat of any diseased animal with intent to sell it ;" and the informa- tion need not allege intent to sell such meat in the state.^^ § 1858. Negativing exception. — ^Under a statute forbidding the manufacture or sale of substitutes for butter, containing a provision that the act shall not prohibit the coloring of such substitute manu- factured for sale outside of the state, an indictment charging a viola- tion need not negative the exception mentioned.^' Article IV. Evidence ; Variance. § 1859. Chemical analysis, competent. — The result of a chemical analysis of a sample of milk or other article of food alleged to be adulterated, is competent evidence though not conclusive as to the quality of the article tested. Such evidence may be met and dis- credited the same as other evidence.^* '" Dorsey v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 527, 44 '^ S. v. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335, S. "W. 514. 88 S. W. 317. See also S. v. Luther, "'Rasch V. S., 89 Md. 755, 43 Atl. 20 R. I. 472, 40 Atl. 9; S. v. HutcMn- 931. See Cook v. S., 110 Ala. 40, 20 son, 55 Ohio St. 573, 45 N. B. 1043. So. 360; S. V. Henderson, 15 Wash. ^Com. v. Spear, 143 Mass. 172, 9 598, 47 Pac. 19. N. B. 632; Com. v. Nichols, 10 Allen =^ Brown v. S., 14 Ind. App. 24, 42 (Mass.) 199; S. v. Groves, 15 R. I- N. E. 244; Moeschke v. S., 14 Ind. 208, 2 Atl. 384; P. v. Salisbury, 37 App. 393, 42 N. E. 1029. N. Y. Supp. 420. § 1860 ADULTERATION OF FOOD. 479 § 1860. Oleomargarine — Color. — ^In a prosecaition for the unlawful sale of oleomargarine it is proper to show in evidence that the article sold was of the color of yellow butter, under a statute prohibiting the sale of imitation butter.^° § 1861. Possession of impure milk. — An indictment for selling im- pure milk or exposing it for sale, is not sustained by evidence that the defendant had impure milk in his possession.^" § 1862. Jurisdiction, state or federal. — A state government can not interfere with the national government in furnishing oleomarr garine to be used as food for the inmates of a national home for federal soldiers located in such state. The state legislature has no constitu- tional power to interfere with national institutions located in the states.^^ ^Cook V, S., 110 Ala. 40, 20 So. "In re Thomas, 87 Fed. 453; State 360. of OMo V. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276, =« Polinsky v. P., 73 N. Y. 65. See 19 S. Ct 453. Com. V. Luscomb, 130 Mass. 42. : CHAPTEE XLIV. MEDICINE AND DENTISTET. !Aet. I. Statutory Provisions Eegulating, . . . §§ 1863-1871 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1872-1881 III. Indictment, §§ 1882-1887 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1888-1890 Article I. Statutoet Provisions Eegulating. § 1863. Begulating practice— Police power.^It is a proper exer- cise of the police power to regulate the practice of medicine by requir- ing a person to pass a satisfactory examination imder the board of health and receive a certificate as a practitioner.^ § 1864. Statute valid — Persons excepted. — A statute regulating the practice of medicine which excepts from its provisions physicians who have been practicing medicine ten years in the state, is not invalid and does not confer upon such excepted persons any "special privilege, immunity or franchise."^ § 1865. Statute valid — ^Regulating pharmacy. — A statute re- lating to pharmacy which prohibits persons except registered phar- macists from compounding and selling medicines is constitutional.' But a statute which prohibits any person except a registered phar- macist from selling patent or proprietary medicines and domestic remedies, is invalid where it does not call for the exercise of any » In re Roe Chung, 9 N. M. 130, 49 37 Ohio St. 347; S. v. Dent, 25 W. Pac. 952. See Com. v. Wilson, 19 Va. 1. Pa. Co. C. R. 521, 6 Pa. Dist. 628; a "Noel v. P., 187 111. 587, 597, 58 V. Call, 121 N. C. 643, 28 S. E. 517. N. E. 616; Saddler v. P., 188 111. 243, 'Williams v. P., 121 111. 84, 88, 11 58 N. E. 906; Overland v. P., 187 111. N. E. 881. See also Wert v. Clutter, 625, 58 N. E. 1095. (480) § 1866 MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY. 481 scientific skill of the pharmacist ia determining the qualities or prop- erties of snch patent medicines as is required in the compounding of medicines. It is class legislation.* § 1866. Venders of drug, license, — A statute requiring itinerant venders of certain drugs, medicines or like kind of goods, to proerare" a license from the proper authorities, to sell such goods, is a proper - exercise of the police power and not an infringement of personall rights.^ § 1867. Statute on dentistry valid. — A statute regulating the prac- tice of dentistry is not an abridgment of the privileges or immunities of citizens under the constitution. ° § 1868. Statute relating to dentistry. — The statute of Illinois regu- lating the practice of dentistry, and providing for a penalty for viola- tions to be recovered in an aetion-in the name of the people, is a civil and not criminal statute ; hence the people may appeal the same as in any other civil suit.'' § 1869. Can not recover for services — ^When. — ^By statutory pro- visions in some of the states a physician practicing virithout a proper certificate and without possessing the qualifications prescribed by- statute, can not recover for professional services.^ Before a physician can enforce the collection of his claims for professional services he must first have fully complied with the law relating to the procuring a certificate authorizing him to practice and the recording of the same." § 1870. Specialist not itinerant. — A statute which provides tb^t any itinerant vender of any drug, who shall by writing or print- ing profess to cure diseases by any drug, must have a license, has no. application to a physician advertising himself as a specialist using, his own medicine.^" *NoeI V. P., 187 111. 587, 597, 58 'P. v. Kelly, 187 111. 333 58 N N. E. 61G; S. v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. E. 373. 74, 42 N. W. 781. « Haworth v. Montgomery 92 °S. V. Wheelock, 95 Iowa 577, 64 Tenn. 16, 18 S. W. 399; Davidson v N. W. 620. See P. v. Moorman, 86 Bohlman, 37 Mo. App. 576 Mich. 433, 49 N. W. 263. ' Maxwell v. Swigart, 48 Neb 789 "Com. V. Gibson, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 67 N. W. 789. 386. »°S. V. Bonham, 96 Iowa 252, 65 N. W. 154. hughes' c. l. — 31 482 hughes' criminal law. § 1871 Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1871. Midwives included. — The uBlawful practice of medieine •without the qualifications prescribed by law, includes midwifery.^^ § 1872. Osteopathy not included. — Under a statute regulating the practice of medicine, which forbids any one to prescribe any "drug or medicine or other agency" for the treatment of disease without a cer- tificate from the proper board authorizing him to practice, the sys- tem of "osteopathy" practiced by rubbing and kneading the body is not included. ^^ But to "treat or operate upon," includes rubbing the affected part.^' § 1873. "Christian Science" not included. — A statute regulating the, practice of medicine has no application to the treatment ad- ministered by the system called Christian Science.^* § 1874. Domestic remedies not included. — Under a statute which permits domestic remedies to be sold by persons who may not be pharmacists, an article or drug may become so well known and of such general use that it will be regarded as a domestic remedy, al- though prepared by professional and skillful chemists.^' § 1875. No compensation — ^Defense. — The practice of medicine by a person without compensation for his services is not a violation of the law, though he is unauthorized to practice.^" The prosecution having introduced evidence tending to prove that the defendant prac- ticed medicine unlawfully by giving advice as to the use of certain drugs which he sold, it was competent for him to show in rebuttal that he was not paid for advice but for the drug only.^^ § 1876. Statute applies to "manager" only.— A statute requiring the manager of a drug business to procure a proper certificate of quah- " P. v. Arendt, 60 III. App. 89. See "Westchester Co. v. Dressner, 48 " S. V. Leffring, 61 Ohio St. 39, 55 N. Y. Supp. 953. N. B. 168. See Eastman v. P., 71 " S. v. Plrlot, 20 R. I. 273, 38 Atl. 111. App. 236. 656; Nelson v. S., 97 Ala. 79, 12 So. " Jones V. P., 84 111. App. 453. 421. See S. v. Call, 121 N. C. 643, "Evans v. S., 6 Ohio N. P. 129. 28 S. E. 517; P. v. Lee Wah, 71 Cal. See S. V. Mylod, 20 R. I, 632, 40 Atl. 80, 11 Pac. 851. 753. Contra, S. v. Buswell, 40 Neb. " Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. is, 158, 58 N. W. 728. 55 N. B. 482. ''P. v. Fisher, 83 111. App. 114. § 1877 MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY. 483 fication before he is authorized to conduct such business, has no appli- cation to the owner of the business who carries it on by his manager.^* § 1877. Sale of drug unauthorized by owner. — The owner of a drug store is not liable for an unlawful sale of drugs or medicines made by a person in his employ who is not a registered pharmacist or assistant, under a statute which forbids sales of such articles, except by phar- macists, where such sale was made without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the store.^° But the clerk or agent who is not a qualified pharmacist making any such sale is liable.^" § 1878. Pee paid, but board neglected to issue certificate. — A phar- macist having made application to the board of pharmacy and paid the proper fee for a certificate of qualification to authorize him to carry on his business, can not be held liable in a criminal prosecution, if the board neglects to issue the certificate.^^ § 1879. Clerk failing to record certificate. — The fact that a clerk failed to properly record the certificate of a doctor of medicine, who filed it and paid the proper fee for having it recorded, will not render the doctor liable to a charge of practicing without a license.^^ § 1880. Manager essential. — ^Under a statute forbidding any per- son, except persons having certificates as pharmacists, to carry on "as manager any retail drug or chemical store," a conviction can not be had unless the defendant was in fact "manager" of "a retail store."^' § 1881. Practicing under one having license. — A person practicing medicine without a license as required by statute, becomes liable, al- though he may have practiced under the direction of a physician and surgeon duly licensed to practice.^* Article III. Indictment. § 1882. Indictment — Without license. — ^Under a statute making it unlawful for any person to practice medicine without a license, an " Com. v. Johnson, 144 Pa. St. 377, '" Price v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 428, 50 22 Atl. 703. S. W. 700. See Mayor, etCf of City " S. v. Robinson, 55 Minn. 169, 56 of N. Y. v. Bigelow, 34 N. Y. Supp. N. W. 594. See Haas v. P., 27 111. 92, 13 Misc. 42. App. 416. '"Com. V. Zacharias, 181 Pa. St. =° Pharmaceutical Soc. V. Wheedon, 126, 37 Atl. 185. . L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 683. ^ S. v. Paul, 56 Neb. 369, 76 N. W. =» Carberry v. P., 39 HI. App. 506. 861. 484 hughes' criminal law. § igss indictment charging that the defendant "practiced medicine" with- ■out a license, is sufficient.'''' § 1883. Indictment must aver some act. — ^Under a statute prohib- iting the practice of medicine without a license, and which enumerates various acts which shall be regarded as "practicing medicine" an in- dictment charging the offense must allege some one of the acts so enumerated; that is, that the defendant prescribed for a considera- tion, or did some other act as a physician."" § 1884. "Unlawfully and willfully" practiced, essential. — ^Under the statute of Missouri, charging in the indictment that the accused "did unlawfully practice, by being a practitioner and doctor of medi- cine and surgery, and engaged in said business without first having filed for record" a proper certificate from the state board of health, permitting him to practice, is defective, in not containing an averment that the defendant unlawfully and willfully so practiced.'" § 1885. Indictment — ^With or without compensation. — Where the practice of medicine without a license, either for or without compensa- tion for services, is made unlawful, an indictment charging the ofiense need not contain an averment that the defendant so practiced for compensation."' § 1886. Indictment — ^Need not negative permit. — An indictment charging the unlawful practice of dentistry is not required to negative the granting of a permit, that being a matter of defense."" § 1887. Publicly professing is essence. — ^By a statute of Iowa, an itinerant vender of any drug, "who shall by writing or printing, or any other method publicly profess to treat diseases" shall procure a =» "Whitlock V. Com., 89 Va. 337, 15 =» Whitlock v. Com., 89 Va. 337, S. B. 893. See Jones v. S., 49 Neb. 15 S. E. 893. 609, 68 N. W. 1034. "Fernet v. S., 151 Ind. 247, 51 ^S. V. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 Pac. N. E. 360; P. v. Allen, 122 Mich. 729; Dee v. S., 68 Miss. 601, 9 So. 123, 80 N. W. 991 (denUstry); P- 356. See S. v. Van Doran, 109 N. v. Curtis, 95 Mich. 212, 54 N. W. C. 864, 14 S. E. 32. 767. See McCann v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. "S. V. Hathaway, 106 Mo. 236, 17 111, 48 S. W. 512; O'Connor v. S,. S. W. 299. 46 Neb. 157, 64 N. W. 719. § 1888 MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY. 485 license. An indictment is not required to aver that the accused sold any drug. To "publicly profess" is the essence of the offense.^" Article IV. Evidence; Vabianob. § 1888. Prima facie evidence — "Doctor." — On a charge for the unlawful practice of medicine, the fact that the defendant at the time of delivering a bottle of medicine gave a card containing his name as Dr., was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, under a statutory rule that the use of the title "doctor" or "Dr." shall be prima facie evidence of such unlawful practice.^^ § 1889. Proof as to no license. — On a charge of practicing medi- cine without a license, the prosecution is not required to prove that the defendant had no license. The burden is on the defendant to show that he was authorized to practiee.^^ § 1890. Acting as physician or surgeon. — On a charge of unlaw- fully practicing medicine as a physician and surgeon, proof that the defendant acted either as a physician or surgeon will sustain the charge.^* =° S. V. Bair, 92 Iowa 28, 60 N. W. ^F. v. Boo Doo Hong, 122 Cal. 606, 486. 55 Pac. 402; Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 ^' Mayer v. S., 64 N. J. L. 323, 45 Mass. 48, 55 N. B. 482; S. v. Hatha- Atl. 624. Pharmacy; evidence not way, 115 Mo. 36, 21 S. W. 1081. sufficient: Good v. P., 184 111. 396, ^'Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 56 N. E. 369. 55 N. E. 482. CHAPTBE XLV. PUBLIC NUISANCES. Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1891-1900 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1901-1906 III. Indictment, §§ 1907-1913 IV. Abating; Suppressing, §§ 1913-1914 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1891. Nuisance defined. — To cause or suffer the carcass of any animal or any offal, filth or noisome substance to be collected, de- posited or to remain in any place to the prejudice of others, is a pub- lie nuisance.^ § 1892. Injurious factory. — Trades and business which generally produce ill effects upon the adjacent owners of property, such as tan- neries, smelting works, rendering and soap factories, are prima facie nuisances ; and no place can be held to be convenient for the exercise of such noxious trades, if injurious results ensue therefrom to others.'' §1893. Disorderly houses. — ^"AU disorderly inns or ale-houses, bawdy-houses, gaming houses, stage plays, unlicensed booths and stages for rope dancers, mountebanks and the like are public nui- sances.'" § 1894. Obstructing highways. — Annoyances in highways, bridges and public rivers by rendering the same inconvenient or dangerous ' Seacord v. P., 121 111. 629, 13 N. E. 194. See 3 Greenl. Bv., § 184; 4 E. 194; S. v. Woodbury, 67 Vt. 602, Bl. Com. 167. 32 Atl. 495. =4 Bl. Com. 168. .See "Qbstruct- " Seacord v. P., 121 111. 635, 13 N. ing Highways." (486) § 1895 PUBLIC NUISANCES. 487 to pass, either positivel}', by actual obstructions, or negatively by want of reparations, are nuisances.* § 1895. Polluting rivers — Obstructing water course. — Any public highway, such as a navigable river, is a "public place," and under an indictment charging a nuisance in a public place, evidence of the pollution of a navigable river constitutes an offense.^ The obstruc- tion of a common water course by a dam or other obstruction causing refuse and debris to collect and lodge in a pond created by such dam, thereby causing and creating decomposition of vegetable and animal matter, engendering malaria, is a nuisance." § 1896. Poisoning water course. — ^TJnder a statute providing that "the corrupting or rendering unwholesome or impure the water of any river," shall constitute a nuisance, the throwing of impurities and poisons into a river to the injury of persons, is an offense.' § 1897. Public swearing. — Public swearing is a nuisance at com- mon law, but to be indictable, it must be in a public place and an an- noyance to the public* § 1898. Annoyance to public. — If the nuisance annoys the com- munity in general and not merely some particular person, it is in- dictable.® § 1899. Injurious to public, to more than one. — ^TTnder the statute, in order that a nuisance shall amount to a criminal offense, it must be to the injury of some of the citizens of the state.^" But it has been held that injury to one person is sufficient to sustain the charge.^^ It must appear from the evidence that some one or more persons were M Bl. Com. 167. 70 N. C. 67, 2 Green C. R. 732; S. v. " S. v. Wabash Paper Co., 21 Ind. Pepper, 68 N. C. 259. App. 167, 48 N. E. 653, 51 N. E. 949. ' S. v. Rankin, 3 S. C. 438, 1 Green "P. V. Pelton, 55 N. Y. Supp. 815, C. R. 510; 4 Bl. Com. 167; Rex v 36 App. Div. 450; P. v. Pelton, 159 White, 1 Burr. 337; 3 Greenl. Ev N. Y. 537, 53 N. E. 1129; P. v. Page, § 186; S. v. Luce, 9 Houst. (Del.) 56 N. Y. Supp. 834, 58 N. Y. Supp. 396, 32 Atl. 1076. 239, 39 App. Div. 110. "S. v. Houck, 73 Ind. 37; Lipp- ' S. v. Smith, 82 Iowa 423, 48 ^N. man v. City of South Bend 84 Ind W. 727. 276. * Com. V. Linn, 158 Pa. St. 22, 27 " S. v. Wolfe, 112 N. C. 889 17 Atl. 843, 9 Am. C. R. 415; S. v. S. B. 528; Com. v. Hopkins 'l33 Chrisp, 85 N. C. 528; S. v. Powell, Mass. 381. 488 hughes' criminal law. § 1900 actually anno}'ed while passing along the road where the nuisance was located before a conviction can be sustained.^^ § 1900. Agent liable with principal. — If the master iatrust to his servant the management and control of the business of selling in- toxicating liquors, and he carries it on in the absence of his employer^ both may be convicted of keeping a nuisance.^' Article II. Matteks of Defense. § 1901. Intent immaterial. — It matters not what care may be exer- cised or what motive may prompt one in conducting his business, such motives will not excuse him from the charge.^* It is not material whether the defendant intended the prejudicial results to others or not, if such result flows from his unlawful act in collecting and de- positing the prohibited noisome substances.^' § 1902. Greater convenience, no defense. — It is now well settled that the circumstance that the thing complained of furnishes, upon the whole, a greater convenience or benefit to the public than it takes away, is no answer to an indictment for a nuisance.'* § 1903. Others contributing. — The fact that the persons or some of them named in the indictment may have volimtarily contributed to creating the nuisance, that is, contributed to the business causing the nuisance, will be no defense or excuse to the defendant.^' § 1904. License, or long usage no defense. — A license from the board of health permitting the accused to manufacture "fertilizers and materials," is no protection and no defense, if he, in fact, created a >^S. V. Wolf, 112 N. C. 889, 895, N. E. 194; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1176. 17 S. E. 528; Com. v. Hopkins, 133 And see S. v. Ryan, 81 Me. 107, 16 Mass. 381; S. v. Smith, 82 Iowa 423, Atl. 406. 48 N. W. 727. " Seacord v. P., 121 111. 636, 13 "Com. v. Merriam, 148 Mass. 427, N. E. 194; S. v. Raster, 35 Iowa 221; 19 N. E. 405; S. v. Bell, 5 Port. 365; Chute v. S., 19 Minn. 271; Hart v. Com. v. Brady, 147 Mass. 583, 18 Mayor, 9 Wend.(N. Y.)571; 2 Roscoe N. E. 568; Com. v. Mann, 4 Gray Cr. Ev., star p. 816; 3 Greenl. Bv. (Mass.) 213. (Redf. ed.), § 187. "S. v. Portland, 74 Me. 268; S. "Seacord v. P., 121 111. 634, 13 N. V. Boll, 59 Mo. 321; Moses v. S., 58 E. 194; Smith v. Phillips, 8 Phil. Ind. 185. (Pa.) 10; Wood on Nuisance, 553; "> Seacord v. P., 121 111. 631, 13 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1175. §1905 PUBLIC NUISANCES. 489 public imisanee.^* An adverse user which is known to have originated without right within the memory of persons now living, will not alone make legal a public nuisance or bar the public of their rights.^' § 1905. Direct cause essential. — The thing charged in the indict- ment as being a nuisance, must be the direct and proximate cause of the nuisance, otherwise it is no offense.^" § 1906. Hides and tallow in city. — ^It is not sufScient to say that the accused violated the ordinance by maintaining a nuisance within the limits of the city, in this, that the defendant kept a large quantity of hides, tallow, and other substances which emitted a disagreea^ale odor.^^ Article III. Indictment. » § 1907. Allegation of facts.— When a thing is not of itself a nui- sance, but becomes so by its special circumstances, this must be alleged in the indictment. Thus, if the nuisance is a public show, corrupting to the public morals, so much of the facts of its indecency, barbarity, or the like must be stated as will enable the court to discern its indict- able character; so, for instance, to allege the keeping of a bawdy- house sufBeiently shows its indictable character. Keeping a "dis- orderly house" is a common law nuisance, and it is necessary that the indictment should contain facts to show that a common nui- sance has been created or permitted. This is done by alleging such facts as show that the accused maintains, promotes or continues what is noisome and offensive or hurtful to the public, or is a public outrage against common decency or common morality, plainly tending to cor- rupt the morals, honesty and good habits of the people.^^ " Garrett v. S., 49 N. J. L. 94, 693, 7 =' Lippman v. City of South Bend, Atl. 29, 7 Am. C. R. 470. See P. v. 84 Ind. 276. Rosenberg, 138 N. Y. 410, 34 N. E. "^ Seacord v. P., 121 111. 629, 13 N. 285. B. 194; P. v. Rosenberg, 138 N. Y. ^"S. V. Ii*ranklin Falls Co., 49 N. 410, 34 N. B. 285; Com. v. Davis, 11 H. 254; Douglass v. S., 4 Wis. 403; Gray (Mass.) 48; 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. P. V. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 (3d ed.), § 865; S. v. Dame, 60 N. H. Mich. 471, 46 JST. W. 735; Com. v. 479, 4 Am. C. R. 445; 2 Bish. Cr. L., Upton, 6 Gray (Mass.) 473; S. v. § 813. Rankin, 3 S. C. 438, 1 Green C. R. '=3 Greenl. Bv., § 185; Beard v. S., 511; Mills V. Hall, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 1044, 8 Am. C. R. S15. .174. =" S. V. Holman, 104 N. C. 861, 10 .S. E. 75S. 490 hughes' criminal law. § 1908 § 1908. Describing location. — In an indictment for keeping or maintaining a nuisance in a biiilding, its location need not be specific- ally described. It is sufficient if it is alleged to be in a certain town in the county.^* In charging a nuisance to be so near a public road as to annoy persons traveling thereon, it is only necessary to state in the indictment the location of the nuisance, without describing the road by its termini or otherwise.^^ § 1909. Conclusion of indictment. — If the indictment, charging a nuisance, states all the essential facts constituting the offense under the law, it is sufficient and need not contain the words, "to the common nuisance of all the good citizens of the commonwealth residing in the neighborhood or passing by" the place of such nuisance.^" § 1910. Duplicity. — It is proper to allege in the indictment the various acts enumerated in the statute, which go to make up the of- fense.^' § 1911. Alleging profanity. — The defendant was charged in the indictment that he did at divers times in the streets of the town of Lumberton, "profanely curse and swear and take the name of Al- mighty God in vain, to the common nuisance of the good people of the state then and there being and residing." Held that it stated no of- fense.^' § 1912. Suflaciency, as to abating. — An order abating a nuisance not being a necessary part of the judgment, an indictment need not be drawn in such manner as will warrant an order abating the nui- sance.^® Article IV. Abating; Suppressing. § 1913. Private person abating. — A private person may of his own motion, abate a public nuisance where the existence thereof is a source "Com. V. Tolman, 149 Mass. 229, Mass. 552; Com. v. Howe, 13 Gray 21 N. E. 377; Seacord v. P., 121 111. (Mass.) 26; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 185. 629, 13 N. E. 194; S. v. Cox, 82 Me. " S. v. Spurbeck, 44 Iowa 667; S. 417, 19 Atl. 857. v. Hart, 34 Me. 36. ^ Com. V. McCormick, 5 Pa. Dist. ^ S. v. Powell, 70 N. C. 67, 2 Green R. 535. C. R. 732. '^ Com. V. Enright, 17 Ky. L. 1183, ^ S. v. Barnes, 20 R. I. 525, 40 Atl. 33 S. W. 1111; Com. v. Goulding, 135 374. See Com. v. Megibben Co., 101 Ky. 195, 19 Ky. L. 291, 40 S. W. 694. § 1914 PUBLIC NUISANCES. 491 of special injury to him, provided he can do so without a breach of the peace.^" But a priyate person can not of his own motion abate a strictly public nuisance if it is not of special injury to him.'^ § 1914. Power to suppress. — ^Under the English municipal corpora- tion act, where the powers conferred are similar to those conferred by statute, it is held that the power to suppress nuisances, is confined to the suppression and prohibition of acts which, if done, must neces- sarily and inevitably cause a nuisance, and does not empower the city council to impose penalties for the doing of things which may or may not be a nuisance according to circumstances.'* =° S. V. White, 18 R. I. 473, 28 Atl. S. v. Smith, 82 Iowa 423, 48 N. W. 968, 9 Am. C. R. 76; S. v. Flannagan, 727. 67 Ind. 140; Clark v. Lake St. Clair, '"'Poyer v. Village of DesPlaines, etc.. Ice Co., 24 Mich. 508; S. v. 18 111. App. 225, 5 Am. C. R. 573; Parrott, 71 N. C. 311, 2 Green C. R. Darst v. P., 51 111. 286; S. v. Carpen- 756; Day v. Day, 4 Md. 262, 270; ter, 60 Conn. 97, 22 Atl. 497; P. v. 3 Bl. Com. 5. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. »' S. V. White, 18 R. I. 473, 28 Atl. 1124; Welch v. Stowell, 2 Doug. 968, 9 Am. C. R. 76; Brown v. Perk- (Mich.) 332; Cronin v. P., 82 N. Y. ins, 12 Gray (Mass.) 89; S. v. Par- 318; S. v. Earnhardt, 107 N. C. 789, rott, 71 N. C, 311, 2 Green C. R. 756; 12 S. B. 426. PART SIX* OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS CHAPTEK XLVI. ABOETIOlf. Aet. I. Essential Elements, §§ 1915-1919 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1920-im III. Indictment, §§ 1925-1930 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1931-1946 V. Venue; Verdict, §§ 1947-1948 Article I. Essential Elements. § 1915. Object of statute. — The abortion statute aims at profes- sional abortionists and at those who by the use of any means intend to produce abortions, but not at those who with no such purpose in view, should by some violent act produce such a result.^ § 1916. Death resulting is murder. — "If a woman be with child and any person gives her a potion to destroy the child within her and she takes it and it works so strongly that it kills her, this is murder; for it was given not to cure her of a disease, but unlawfully to destroy her child within her, and therefore he that gives a potion to this end must take the hazard, and if it kill the mother it is murder."^ ' Slattery v. P., 76 111. 219; 2 Mc- Moore, 25 Iowa 128, 95 Am. D. 776; Clain Cr. L., § 1146. S. v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 2 Am. n Hale P. C. 430; 1 Bast P. C. C. R. 9. 230; Smith v. S., 33 Me. 48; S. v. (492) i 1917 ABORTION. 493 § 1917. "With quick child." — It is said by most respectable author- ities that the procuring or attempting to procure a miscarriage or abortion was not an ofEense at common law, if the pregnant woman had not herself felt the child alive and quick within her, and con- sented to the act.' "Quick with child" is having conceived. "With quick child" is when the child has quickened.* § 1918. FoisoAous or noxious thing; "savin." — ^The thing admin- istered or prescribed to procure the miscarriage of a woman then pregnant with child, must be noxious in its nature ; but it is not neces- sary to prove that it will produce that effect. The words of the statute are any "poison or other noxious thing."^ But it has been held, on a charge of administering to a woman pregnant with child, and advising her to take or swallow a poison, drug, medicine or noxious thing, With intent to cause a miscarriage, it does not devolve upon the prose- cution to allege or prove that the drug or medicine given was a "noxious thing."" A small quantity of savin, not sufficient to do more than produce a little disturbance in the stomach, is not a noxious thing within the meaning of the statute.'' Article II. Matters oe Defense. § 1919. The mother not accomplice. — It is well seitled that the person on whom the operation for procuring an abortion is alleged to have been performed, is not an accomplice.* § 1920. Drug or powder harmless. — Upon an indictment charging the defendant with depositing in the mail a certain powder designed »S. V. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 2 "S. v. Gedlcke, 43 N. J. L. 86, 4 Am. C. R. 9 (citing Com. v. Bangs> Am. C. R. 9; Powe v. S., 48 N. J. L. 9 Mass. 387; Smith v. S., 33 Me. 48; 34, 2 Atl. 662. See S. v. Morrow, 40 Com. v. Parker, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 263, S. C. 221, 18 S. E. 853; Reg. v. Hen- 43 Am. Dec. 396; S. v. Cooper, 22 N. nah, 13 Cox C. C. 548. J. L. 52, 51 Am. D. 248; P. v. Mc- "Com. v. Morrison, 16 Gray Dowell, 63 Mich. 229, 30 N. W. 68; (Mass.) 224; S. v. Vawter, 7 Blackf. Mitchell V. Com., 78 Ky. 204, 39 Am. (Ind.) 592. R. 227. Contra. Mills v. Com., 1 'Q. v. Perry, 2 Cox C. C. 223; Reg. Harris (Pa.) 631-4); Com. v. Wood, v. Isaacs, L. & C. 220. 77 Mass. 85; S. v. Fitzgerald, 49 'Com. v. Follanshee, 155 Mass. Iowa 260, 31 Am. R. 148. See Com. 274, 277, 29 N. E. 471; Com. v. V. Demaln, 6 Pa. L. J. 29; S. v. Sla- Boynton, 116 Mass. 343; Com. v. gle, 82 N. C. 653; Wilson v. S., 2 Brown, 121 Mass. 69; S. v. Owens, Ohio St. 319; UnderhlU Cr. Ev., 22 Minn. 238; Dunn v. P., 29 N. Y. § 344. 533. See P. v. Murphy, 101 N. Y. "Reg. V. Wycherley, 8 C. & P. 262. 126. 4 N. E. 326; Underhlll Cr. Bv., See Rex v. Phillips, 3 Camp. 77; § 346. Contra, P. v. Josselyn, 39 Taylor v. S., 105 Ga. 846, 33 S. E. Cal. 393. 190 ("quick"). 494 hughes' criminal law. § 1921 and intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abor- tion, he can not show as a matter of defense that the powder which he deposited in the mail would not in fact have any tendency to prevent conception or procure abortion, and that its harmless character was known to him." § 1921. Woman consenting. — That the woman consented that an abortion might be performed on her, is no defense.^" § 1922. Woman threatening suicide. — That the woman threatened to commit suicide unless relieved of the child, is no justification.^^ § 1923. Merely advising no offense. — Merely advising a woman to take a noxious drug or medicine with intent to procure a miscarriage is not an oifense ; the advice must be acted upon before the offense is complete.^^ § 1924. Sending drug by mail. — Sending a drug by mail to a preg- nant woman to be taken by her for the purpose of producing a mis- carriage is evidence tending to prove an administration of such drug." Article III. Indictment. § 1925. Name of drug. — Under the statute, it is not necessary to state the name of the medicine, drug or substance in the indictment, nor describe it as a noxious thing.^* If the drug or instrument be unknown it may be alleged in the indictment as unknown.^^ § 1926. Administering drug. — An indictment charging in the language of the statute that the defendant did unlawfully and felon- ' U. S. V. Bott, 11 Blatchf . 346, 2 " S. v. Moothart, 109 Iowa 130, 80 Green C. R. 239. See Underbill Cr. N. W. 301. Ev., § 345, citing Com. v. Corkin, 136 » S. v. Vawter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) Mass. 429; P. v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 592; S. v. Fitzgerald, 49 Iowa 260, 348, 65 N. W. 203. Further as to 31 Am. R. 148, 3 Am. C. R. 2; Dough- using the malls for such purpose, erty v. P., 1 Colo. 514; Watson v. S., see Jones v. S., 70 Md. 326, 17 Atl. 89. 9 Tex. App. 237; S. v. Van Houten, "Com. V. Snow, 116 Mass. 47; 37 Mo. 357; S. v. Reed, 45 Ark. 333; Com. V. Wood, 77 Mass. 85. Reg. v. Goodall, 2 Cox C. C. 41. See " Hatchard v. S., 79 Wis. 357, 48 Cave v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 335, 26 S. W. N. W. 380. 503; S. v. Morrow, 40 S. 0. 221, 18 ^' Lamb v. S., 67 Md. 524, 10 Atl. S. E. 853. 208, 298; P. v. Phelps, 133 N. Y. 267, "> Baker v. P., 105 111. 452; Com. v. 30 N. E. 1012. See Dougherty v. P., Thompson, 159 Mass. 56, 33 N. E. 1 Colo. 514. 1111; S. V. Wood, 53 N. H. 484. §1927 ABORTION. 495 iously procure the woman to take the drug mentioued, with intent to cause a miscarriage, is sufficient. It is not necessary to allege that the TToman swallowed the drug.^^ The offense is complete as soon as the medicine is administered with the intent alleged.^* § 1927. Pregnancy immaterial. — Under the statute it is not neces- sary to allege in the indictment that the woman was pregnant or that the defendant knew or believed she was pregnant.^' § 1928. Manner of using instrument. — An indictment alleged that the defendant "did administer and use on" and "did use on and ad- minister to" the female a certain instrument, without stating how or in what manner the instrument was used "or administered," whether- by forcing, thrusting and inserting said instrument into the private parts or in some other manner. Held fatally defective.^" The in- dictment alleging that the defendant "did use a certain instrument, the name of which instrument is to the jurors unknown, by forcing and thrusting the instrument aforesaid into the body and womb," with the intent to procure a miscarriage, is sufficient, where the instrument is unknown.^^ § 1929. Alleging intent — "Attempt."— The statute of Illinois is as follows: "Whoever by means of any instrument, medicine, drug or other means whatever, causes any woman pregnant with child, to abort or miscarry or attempts to procure or produce an abortion or miscarriage unless the same were done to preserve the mother's life, " S. V. Owens, 22 Minn. 238; S. v. L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 420, 8 Am. C. R. 1. Murphy, 27 N. J. L. 112; S. v. Moot- See Reg. v. Goodchild, 2 C. & K. 293. hart, 109 Iowa 130, 80 N. W. 301. ='° Cochran v. P., 175 111. 31, 51 N. See Dougherty v. P., 1 Colo. 514. E. 845. Indictment held sufficient: " S. v. Hollenbecli, 36 Iowa 112. S. v. Sherwood, 75 Ind. 15; P. v. "Com. V. Tibbetts, 157 Mass. 519, Stockham, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 424; 32 N. E. 910; Com. v. Taylor, 132 Holland v. S., 131 Ind. 568, 31 N. E. Mass. 261. See S. v. Howard, 32 Vt. 359; Baker v. P., 105 111. 452; Com. 380; Com. v. Noble, 165 Mass. 13, 42 v. Wood, 77 Mass. 85; Navarro v. S., N. E. 328; Com. v. Surles, 165 Mass. 24 Tex. App. 378, 6 S. "W. 542; 59, 42 N. E. 502; Reg. v. Titley, 14 Rhodes v. S., 128 Ind. 189, 27 N. E. Cox C. C. 502. But see Powe v. S., 866. Form: Howard v. P., 185 111. 48 N. J. L. 34, 2 Atl. 662. See Reg. 552, 57 N. B. 441; S. v. Quinn, 2 Pen. T. Goodall, 2 Cox C. C. 41. A con- (Del.) 339, 45 Atl. 544. Indictment vlction for a conspiracy to commit not sufficient: S. v. Crook, 16 Utah an abortion on a woman who be- 212, 51 Pac. 1091. lleved herself to be with child will " Com. v. Jackson, 81 Mass. 187; be sustained, though in fact she was Com. v. Snow, 116 Mass. 47. not pregnant: Reg. v. Whitchurch, 496 hughes' criminal law. § 1930 shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary," from one to ten years. An indictment is not defective, under this statute, in not alleging that the act was done or drug given "with intent" to produce an abortion or miscarriage. The word "attempt" in the statute necessarily in- cludes intent. The indictment properly alleging an "attempt" is, therefore, sufficient.''^ § 1930. Exceptions, when to negative. — Where an act is made criminal, with exceptions embraced in the same clause of the statute which defines the offense so as to be descriptive of the offense, it is necessary to negative the exception in the indictment, but this need not be done in the exact words of the statute ; equivalent words will be sufficient. The words, "it not then and there being necessary to ' cause such miscarriage for the preservation of the life of the mother," is equivalent 'to, "unless the same were done as necessary for the pres- ervation of the mother's life."''' But "maliciously and without law- ful Justification," is not equivalent to, "unless the same is necessary to preserve her life."^* Article IV. Evidence; Variance. § 1931. Necessary to save life. — The prosecution will not be re- quired to prove that the abortion was not necessary to save the life of the mother; that is a matter of defense.^^ The burden is on the defendant to show that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman, but he is not required to establish this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.^" § 1932. Correspondence between parties. — Any correspondence be- tween the defendant and the woman on whom an abortion was at- == Scott v. P., 141 111. 195, 204, 30 622, 17 N. Y. Supp. 147; Moody v. S.. N. E. 329; S. v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 17 Ohio St. 110. See S. v. Watson, 37 Atl. 75; S. v. Stevenson, 68 Vt. 30 Kan. 281, 1 Pac. 770; Hatchard v. 529, 35 Atl. 470. See S. v. Montgom- S., 79 Wis. 357, 48 N. W. 380. ery, 71 Iowa 630. 33 N. W. 143; Contra, S. v. Glass, 5 Or. 73; S. v. Smith V. S., 33 Me. 48. Aiken, 109 Iowa 643, 80 N. W. 1073; ''^'Beasley v. P., 89 111. 571; Willey S. v. Clements, 15 Or. 237, 14 Pac. V. S., 52 Ind. 246; S. v. Mclntyre, 19 410; S. v. Schuerman, 70 Mo. App. Minn. 93; S. v. Aiken, 109 Iowa 643, 518. SO N. W. 1073. ^ S. V. Stevenson, 68 Vt. 529, 35 "S. V. Stokes, 54 Vt. 179. See S. Atl. 470; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 347, V. Meek, 70 Mo. 355, 35 Am. R. 427; citing S. v. McCoy, 15 Utah 136, 49 S. V. Leeper, 70 Iowa 748, 30 N. W. Pac. 420; S. v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 37 501. Atl. 75. "op. V. McGonegal, 62 Hun (N. Y.) § 1933 ABORTION. 497 tempted, relating to the means used to produce a miscarriage, is com- petent.^^ §1933. Defendant furnisMng means. — That the defendant fur- nished the woman with the means of producing an ahortion and gave her instructions how to use or apply the means so furnished, may ba shown in evidence.^* § 1934. Several attempts competent. — ^Different attempts of the accused to commit an abortion on the same woman at different times, are competent, as tending to show his knowledge of the woman's pregnancy and his intention to commit an abortion upon her, whether such attempts were prior or subsequent to the particular act charged in the indictment.^' § 1935. Statements of deceased ; res gestae. — Statements made by the deceased which are part of the res gestae are competent, such as that she had found out that she was in the family way and that she had called to see the defendant about it; that she was going to get medicine from him ; that she had made arrangements with him to have an operation.^" But dying declarations of the deceased which are not part of the res gestae are incompetent.^"* § 1836. Declarations of co-conspirator. — If the woman not only consents to the operation, but actually seeks and adopts means in furtherance of it, her declarations may be admitted against the ac- cused, as the declarations against a fellow conspirator made to pro- mote the common design.^'^ § 1937. Woman's statement to physician. — Statements made by the woman to a physician at the time of his examination as to her bodily feelings and symptoms of pregnancy are admissible in evidence as " S. V. Moothart, 109 Iowa 130, 80 "» S. v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 2 N. W. 301. See Com. v. Mitchell, 6 Am. C. R. 3; S. v. Pearce, 56 Minn. Pa. Supr. 369, 41 W. N. C. 455. 226, 57 N. W. 652, 1065; Rhodes v. ^ Jones v. S., 70 Md. 326, 17 Atl. S., 128 Ind. 189, 27 N. E. 868; Com. 89; Com. v. Blair, 126 Mass. 40. See v. Leach, 156 Mass. 99, 30 N. E. 153; McCaughey v. S. (Ind. 1901), 59 N. P. v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 96. See Under- E. 169. hill Cr. Bv., § 348; P. v. Olmstead, " Scott V. P., 141 111. 195, 213, 30 30 Mich. 431. N. E. 329; Com. v. Corldn, 136 Mass. ^as. v. Meyer, 64 N. J. L. 382, 45 429; King v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 472, 34 Atl. 779, 47 Atl. 486. S. W. 282; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1151; ='Underhill Cr. Ev., § 348, citing S. v. Smith, 99 Iowa 26, 68 N. W. Solander v. P., 2 Colo. 48, 64. 428; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 345; Lamb v. S., 66 Md. 285, 287, 7 Atl. 399. H0QHES' C. L.— ,32 498 hughes' criminal law. § 1938 part of the facts on which his opinion is founded ."^ A physician who attended the woman after the alleged abortion, was examined as a witness, and on being asked his opinion whether the birth occurred from natural or artificial causes, said that an abortion had been committed ; but his opinion was based on what the woman said to him together with his personal examination of her. Held competent.^' § 1938. Woman's condition ; defendant's action. — Evidence of the woman's physical condition and treatment, her relations with the de- fendant, both before and after the alleged abortion, a detailed his- tory of her illness from the beginning to the end, are all proper mat- ters of evidence ; also anything he may have said or done in connec- tion therewith may be shown in evidence.** § 1939. Hearsay evidence. — Two persons were jointly indicted for ^attempting to produce an abortion. One was tried alone. A woman testified for the prosecution that the defendant, who was not put on t;rial, told her at her house that he had got medicine for the woman on whom the abortion was attempted and that the other defendant told liim to get it and he would pay for it. Held incompetent and error.'" § 1940. Result of post-mortem.— The result of a post-mortem ex- amination by a competent physician is proper to be given in evidence; and his opinion in relation to any instrument, drug or means used ia procuring an abortion, or whether an abortion, in fact, had been procured, causing the death of the woman, may be given in evidence.'' § 1941. Privilege of woman. — It has been held that a physician who has visited and treated a woman professionally after an alleged '"S. v. Gedicke, 43 N. J. L. 86, 4 v. S. (Tex.), 19 S. W. 897; Com. v. Am. C. R. 7; Barber v. Merriam, 11 Thompson, 159 Mass. 56, 33 N. B. Allen (Mass.) 322; 1 Greenl. Bv., 1111; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 350. The § 102. facts In the following cases hew ^ P. v. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126, 4 N. sufficient to sustain convictions: -E. 326, 6 Am. C. R. 195. Earll v. P., 99 111. 124; S. v. Mont- «P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 33 N. gomery, 71 Iowa 630, 33 N. Vf.U6, W. 821; Com. v. Wood, 11 Gray Com. v. Drake, 124 Mass. 21; P. v. (Mass.) 85; Com. v. PoUansbee, 155 Van Zile, 73 Hun 534, 26 N. Y. Supp. Mass. 274, 29 N. B. 471. 390; Williams v. S. (Tex.), 19 fa- w- =» Samples v. P. 121 111. 550, 13 897. See also Reg. v. Hollis, w N. E. 536. See S. v. Gunn, 106 Iowa Cox C. C. 463, 1 Green C. B. 14^. 120, 76 N. W. 510. Held not sufficient: Slattery v. r., "Com. v. Leach, 156 Mass. 99, 30 76 111. 219; S. v. Porsythe, 78 lowa N. B. 163; Hauk v. S., 148 Ind. 238, 595, 43 N. W. 548; Cook v. P., I'f 46 N. E. 127, 47 N. E. 465; Williams 111. 146, 52 N. B. 273. § 1942 ABORTION. 499 abortion, will not be permitted to disclose any fact he may have learned while attending her, during the time she is living; but he may testify if she is dead.^' § 1942. Accomplice, when not. — An intimate friend of the de- ceased, knowing her pregnancy and desire for relief, by merely accom- panying her to the house of the accused, without aiding or advising the commission of the crime, is not an accomplice.^* § 1943. Secreting dead body of child. — Where the evidence showed the birth of a child and that while alive its mother endeavored to conceal its birth by depositing it alive in a field, leaving it to die from €xposure, it was held that the evidence would not support a convic- tion for the secret disposition of the dead body of her child.*" The indictment must aver and the proof show that the child was dead at the time it was concealed.*^ § 1944. Concealing birth. — A concealment may be attempted by one who is unable to keep the knowledge of the fact from others whose assistance is necessary and upon whom secrecy is enjoined.** § 1945. Several instruments used. — Where an indictment alleges that an attempt had been made to produce a miscarriage with several different instruments, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant Tised all the instruments described. Proof of the use of one is suffi- cient.** § 1946. Variance — ^Force or consent ; drug or violence. — An in- formation charging that the act of abortion was performed by "force and violence," is supported by evidence that the woman gave her con- sent to the act causing miscarriage.** If, in fact, an abortion was caused by the use of instruments involving the application of force rather than by drugs taken as alleged, yet if the defendant advised the ■« Underbill Cr. Ev., § 351, citing George, 11 Cdx C. C. 41. See the P. V. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126, 4 N. E. following cases on the concealment 326; Pierson V. P., 79 N. Y. 424. of the birth or death of a child- " P. V. McGonegal, 136 N. Y. 62, 32 Reg. v. Morris, 2 Cox C. C. 489: S. v N. E. 616, 42 N. Y. St. 307, .62 Hun Kirby, 57 Me. 30. 622, 17 N. Y. Supp. 147. ' " Scott v. P., 141 111. 195, 30 N. B "Reg. V. May, 10 Cox C. C. 448. 329; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1150 See "Douglass V. Com., 8 Watts (Pa.) S. v. Lilly (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 837 535; Boyles v. Com., 2 S. & R. (Pa.) "P. v. Abbott, 116 Mich. 263' 74 40. N. W. 529. "S. V. Hill, 58 N. H. 475; Reg. v. 500 hughes' criminal law. § 1947 nse of the drugs, a conviction should be sustained; the offense consists of the use of the means mentioned.*' Article V. Venue; Verdict. § 1947. Venue, jurisdiction. — When medicine is administered with intent to procure a miscarriage the offense is complete regardless of the result. The offense charged in the indictment being completed by administering the medicine with the intent specified, in a county named, it follows that the court in another county would have no jurisdiction to try the case.** § 1948. Death resulting — ^Manslaughter. — If death be the result of an attempt to produce an abortion, a conviction for manslaughter will be sustained, though the statute provides that the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of murder.*^ If the woman was pregnant and the accused unlawfully produced an abortion, and sickness ensued from the unlawful act, resulting in death, a verdict of manslaughter will be sustained ; and it is pot material whether the woman was quick with child or not.' 43 « S. V. Morrow, 40 S. C. 221, 18 9 S. W. 509, 810. See S. v. Dickin- S. E. 853. son, 41 Wis. 299; Howard v. P., 185 «S. V. Jones, 36 Iowa 608; S. v. 111. 552, 57 N. E. 441. Buster, 90 Mo. 514, 2 S. W. 834; S. v. "Yundt v. P., 65 111. 374; Peoples Hollenbeck, 36 Iowa 112. v. Com., 87 Ky. 487, 10 Ky. L. 517, "Earn V. P., 73 111. 332; Peoples 9 S. W. 509, 810; S. v. McNab, 20 T. Com., 87 Ky. 487, 10 Ky. L. 517, N. H. 160. CHAPTBE XLVII. ADULTEKT. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1949-1953 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1953-1957 III. Indictment, §§ 1958-1964 TV. Evidence; Variance; Witnesses, • • • §§ 1965-1978 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1949. What constitutes adultery. — The offense of adultery con- sists in living in a state of open and notorious cohabitation and adul- tery. "Notorious cohabitation" is a material element of the offense.^ The "living together" must be open and notorious, to constitute adul- tery under the statute.^ If a married man lives openly and notoriously with a married or an unmarried woman, he is guilty of the offense of adultery.' 'P. V. Gates, 46 Cal. 52, 2 Green Searls v. P., 13 111. 597; Taylor v. C. R. 425; Wright v. S., 5 Blackf. S., 36 Ark. 84; S. v. Fellows, 50 Wis. (Ind.) 358, 35 Am. D. 126; Ex parte 65, 6 N. W. 239; Walker v. S., 104 Thomas, 103 Cal. 497, 37 Pac. 514; Ala. 56, 16 So. 7; S. v. Miller, 42 W. S. V. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85; Carrotti Va. 215, 24 S. E. 882; S. v. Donovan V. S., 42 Miss. 334, 97 Am. D. 465; 61 Iowa 278, 16 N. W. 130; S. v. S. V. Chandler, 132 Mo. 155, 33 S. W. Taylor, 58 N. H. 331; Underhill Cr. 797; Wright v. S., 108 Ala. 60, 18 Bv., § 380. See Sweenie v. S., 59 So. 941; Schoudel v. S., 57 N. J. L. Neb. 269, 80 N. W. 815. 209, 30 Atl. 598; Quartemas v. S., ' S. v. Fellows, 50 Wis. 65 6N W 48 Ala. 269. 239; S. v. Hutchinson, 36 Me. 261- ' Miner v. P., 58 111. 60, 1 Green Com. v. Call, S8 Mass. 509, 32 Am. D C. R. 656; Bird v. S., 27 Tex. App. 284; Kendrick v. S., 100 Ga. 360 28 635, 11 S. W. 641; Clouser v. Clap- S. E. 120; S. v. Taylor, 58 N. H. 331; 75er, 59 Ind. 548; S. v. Crowner, 56 Com. v. LafCerty, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 672 Mo. 147, 2 Green C. R. 616; S. v. See S. v. Chandler, 96 Ind. 591; S. v. Marvin, 12 Iowa 499; P. v. Gates, 46 Armstrong, 4 Minn. 335; S v Lash! Cal. 52; Kinard v. S., 57 Miss. 132; 16 N. J. L. 380, 32 Am. D. 397 (501) 502 hughes' criminal law. § 1950 § 1950. Marriage, essential. — It is essential that one of the parties must have been lawfully married to another person, at the time of the adulterous conduct.* § 1951. Consent of woman, not essential. — The man may be guilty of adultery, although at the time of having sexual intercourse he did not have the consent of the woman. ° § 1952. Fornication — What constitutes it. — To sustain a charge of fornication it must appear that the defendant was single and un- married, for the meaning of the term "fornication" is carnal and illicit intercourse of an unmarried person with the opposite sex.' On a. charge of adulterj against a woman with a man to whom she had been married, where the evidence shows that he had married an- other woman, the state must show that the defendant knew of such former marriage.' Article II. Matters op Defense. § 1953. Advice — When no defense. — The defendants applied to a justice of the peace for advice as to whether they had a right to marry each other, informing the justice that the husband of the woman had married another woman. The Justice advised them ,that under that state of facts they could lawfully marry, and relying upon that ad- vice they were married. Held no defense to a charge of adultery.' § 1954. Mere familiarities ;. merely soliciting. — The crime of adul- tery can not be sustained by proof of familiarities or by a single act of illicit intercourse or a number of such acts without living together; nor would living together without illicit intercourse constitute the •Webb v. S., 24 Tex. App. 164, 5 2 Am. C. R. 160; S. v. Chandler, 96 S. W. 651; Ter. v. Whltcomb, 1 Mont. Ind. 591; Kendrlck v. S., 100 Ga. 360, 359; Banks v. S„ 96 Ala. 78. 11 So. 28 S. E. 120; Hood v. S., 56 Ind. 263, 404; S. V. Rood, 12 Vt. 396; White v. 2 Am. C. R. 172, 26 Am. R. 21. S., 74 Ala. 31; S. v. Winkley, 14 'Banks v. S., 96 Ala. 78, 11 So. N. H. 480; Buchanan v. S., 55 Ala. 404. See S. v. Cody, 111 N. 0. 725, 154; Hull v. Hull, 2 Strob. Bq. (S. 16 S. B. 408; Vaughan v. S., 83 Ala. C.) 174. 55, 3 So. 530. But see Owens v. S., " Com. V. Bakeman, 131 Mass. 577, 94 Ala.' 97, 10 So. 669. 41 Am. R. 248; Mathews v. S., 101 » S. v. Goodenow, 65 Me. 30, 1 Am. Qa. 547, 29 S. B. 424; S. v. Donovan, C. R. 44; S. v. Whltcomb, 52 Iowa 85, 61 Iowa 278, 16 N. W. 130; S. v. 2 N. W. 970, 35 Am. R. 258; Cutter Sanders, 30 Iowa 582. v. S., 36 N. J. L. 125. «Ter. V. Whitcomb, 1 Mont. 359, §'1955 ADULTERY. 503 offense." Merely soliciting another to commit adultery is not an offense.^" § 1955. Marrying after divorce. — A man who has been divorced for his own fault, will not be guilty of adultery by marrying and liv- ing with a second wife.^^ § 1956. Void divorce, no defense. — A decree of divorce entered by a court having no jurisdiction, is void; such decree affords no pro- tection to one charged with the offense of adultery.^^ g 1957. Proof showing bigamy. — It is no defense to a charge of adultery that the evidence may show the defendants are guilty of bigamy.^' Article III. Indictment. § 1958. Statutory words sufficient. — An indictment substantially in the language of the statute, whether in the precise words or not, is sufficient.^* § 1959. Marriage essential. — Adultery being criminal intercourse between a married person and one of the opposite sex whether married or single, the marriage of such person must be alleged and proven.^^ But it is not necessary to allege to whom the party is married.^" Nor is it necessary to allege that the persons committing the offense were male -and female.'^' 'Miner v. P., 58 111. 60; Crane v. Am. D. 59; Com. v. Putnam, 1 Pick. P., 168 111. 406, 48 N. E. 54; Hilton (Mass.) 136. V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 113; Mitten '" S. v. Pleak, 54 Iowa 429, 6 N. W. V. S., 24 Tex. App. 346, 6 S. W. 196; 689. See S. v. "Watson, 20 R.I. 354. Sweenie v. S., 59 Neb. 269, 80 N. W. 39 Atl. 193. 815; Taylor v. S., 36 Ark. 84, 4 Am. "Owens v. S., 94 Ala. 97, 10 So. C. R. 30; S. V. Crowner, 56 Mo. 147, 669; Hildreth v. S., 19 Tex. App. 195. 2 Green C. R. 617; S. v. Coffee, 75 "Crane v. P., 168- 111. 396, 48 N. E. Mo. App. 88; S. v. Wiltsey, 103 Iowa 54; S. v. Tally, 74 N. C. 322. 54, 72 N. W. 415; Smith v. S., 39 Ala. '"Miner v. P., 58 111. 60; Tucker 554; Bodiford v. S., 86 Ala. 67, 5 So. v. S., 35 Tex. 113; Ter. v. Whitcomb 559; Clouser v. Clapper, 59 Ind. 548. 1 Mont. 358. See S. v. Byrum (Neb.), 83 N. W. "= Hildreth v. S., 19 Tex. App. 195; 207. Moore v. Com., 6 Mete. (Mass.) 243; " S. V. Butler, 8 Wash. 194, 35 Pac. Davis v. Com. (Pa.), 7 Atl. 194. 1093; Smith v. Com., 54 Pa. St. 209, " S. v. Lashley, 84 N. C. 755; Mc- 93 Am. D. 686. See S. v. Avery, 7 Leod v. S., 35 Ala. 397. > See Holland: Conn. 267, 18 Am. D. 105. v. S., 14 Tex. App. 182. " S. v. Weatherly, 43 Me. 258, 69 f>04 hughes' criminal law. § 1960 § 19G0. Joint indictment. — The law is well settled that the par- ties to the crime of adultery may be jointly indicted.^* § 1961. Joining different offenses. — Several distinct acts of adul- tei-y may be charged in different counts in the same indictment." § 1962. Indictment sufficient. — The indictment charged that the defendant has been and still does lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit with one C. M. J., a single woman, he, the said defendant (naming him), during all the time aforesaid being a married man and having a lawful wife living: Held sufficient.'" § 1963. Indictment defective. — The indictment alleging that the defendant did commit the crime of adultery with a certain woman, naming her, by having carnal knowledge of her body, she, the said woman being then and there a married woman and having a husband alive, is defective in that it does not show with certainty that the said woman was not the wife of the defendant.^^ But if the indictment alleges that the woman with whom the defendant is charged with committing the offense is the lawful wife of another man, then it suf- ficiently alleges that she is not the lawful wife of the defendant.'' g 1864. Duplicity. — Where an indictment charged the defendant with committing the offense of adultery on the first day of July and "on divers other days between that day and the fifth day of June" of the same year, it was held bad for duplicity, adultery not being a continuing offense as charged in the indictment.^' But in Iowa the continuing element is regarded as surplusage.^* '»S. V. Bartlett, 53 Me. 446; S. v. Vt. 202, 24 Am. R. 124; Names v. S., Dlngee, 17 Iowa 232; Com. v. Elwell, 20 Ind. App. 168, 50 N. E. 401. 43 Mass. 190, 35 Am. D. 398. Or one of " Moore v. Com., 47 Mass. 243, 39 the parties may -be indicted alone: Am. D. 724; Tucker v. S., 35 Tex. S. v. Watson, 20 R. I. 354, 39 Atl. 113; Clay v. S., 3 Tex. App. 499. 193; S. V. Dlngee, 17 Iowa 232; Coreira. S. v. Clark, 54 N. H. 456. Disharoon v. S., 95 Ga. 351, 22 S. B. =^ Com. v. Reardon, 60 Mass. 78; 698; S. V. Cox, N. C. T. R. 165; Bigby Helfrich v. Com., 33 Pa. St. 68, 75 V. S., 44 Ga. 344. See Solomon v. Am. D. 579; S. v. Hutchinson, 36 S., 39 Tex. Cr. 140, 45 S. W. 706. Me. 261. >» Ketchlngham v. S., 6 Wis. 426; ™Com. v. Fuller, 163 Mass. 499, 40 Bailey v. S., 36 Neb. 808, 55 N. W. N. E. 764. 241. « S. v. Briggs, 68 Iowa 419, 27 N. " S. V. Clark, 54 N. H. 456, 1 Am. W. 358. C. R. 41. See S. v. Bridgman, 49 § 1965 ADULTERY. 505 Article IV. Evidence; Variance; Witnesses. § 1965. Single or married state presumed. — The status of mar- riage being once proved, is presumed to continue until death or divorce separates the parties.^' And so, the single state will be presumed to continue until testimony to the contrary is introduced.^' § 1966. Proving marriage — Eepntation. — On the trial of one charged with adultery the testimony of persons who were present at the former marriage is competent to prove such marriage.^' Previous marriage may be proven by reputation in all cases where it occurs incidentally, but such proof alone is not sufficient to establish the fact of marriage.^^ Evidence that the defendant was reputed to be a married man is not sufficient proof of marriage.^^ § 1967. Proving marriage by record. — Proving or attempting to prove the marriage of the defendant to the woman alleged to be his wife by a copy of the marriage record will not exclude other proof of such marriage.^" § 1968. Marriage contract or certificate competent. — A marriage contract in writing existing between the parties, or a marriage certifi- cate, is competent to show the previous marriage.^^ Where a marriage certificate is introduced to prove the marriage of the defendant there must be other evidence to show that he is the same person named in the certificate.'^ ''"P. V. Stokes, 71 Cal. 263, 12 Pac. Tenny (Ariz.), 8 Pac. 295; Harman 71, 8 Am. C. R. 17; Underhill Cr. v. Harman, 16 111. 85. Ev., § 383. ^ii Minor v. P., 58 111. 59; Wood v. ^° Gaunt V. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, 14 S., 62 Ga. 406; S. v. Hodgskins 19 Atl. 600, 8 Am. C. R. 298. See Lewis Me. 155, 36 Am. D. 742 V. P., 37 Mich. 518, 2 Am. C. R. 75; "P. v. Stokes, 71 Cal. 263, 12 Pac S. V. McDuffle, 107 N. C. 885, 12 S. E. 71; Roger v. S., 19 Tex. App 91- 83. Contra, Hopper v. S., 19 Ark. Com. v. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163- 143. Underhill Cr. Bv., § 44; S. v. Clark ^'Lord V. S., 17 Neb. 526, 23 N. W. 54 N. H. 456; Thomas v. S (Tex )' 507; Mills v. U. S., 1 Pinn. (Wis.) 26 S. W. 724. 73; S. V. Clark, 54 N. H. 456; Com. "^ S. v. Behrman, 114 N C 797 19 V. Dill, 156 Mass. 226, 30 N. B. 1016; S. E. 220; S. v. Isenhart 32 "or 170 Underhill Cr. Ev., §§ 44, 383; Owens 52 Pac. 569. V. S., 94 Ala. 97, 10 So. 669. '^ S. v. Brink, 68 Vt. 659 35 Atl =»U. S. v. Higgerson, 46 Fed. 750; 492; P. v. Isham, 109 Mich 72 67 1 Bish. Mar. & D., §§ 438, 540; 1 N. W. 819; Underhill Cr. Bv ? 383 Greenl. Ev., §§ 103, 104. 107; U. S. v. 506 hughes' criminal law. §1969 § 1969. Declarations competent. — Declarations or statements made by the defendant, either orally or in writing, such as a letter written to the woman alleged to be his wife, are competent as tending to prove that she is his wife.^' Where the man and woman are jointly in- dicted for adultery any admissions or confessions made by one of them is competent only against the one making the same.'* What the defendant said to his wife as to his whereabouts on the night in question is competent, as well as what his wife said causing him to make a statement.^' § 1970. Confession of defendant. — The defendant's plea of guilty to the complaint before the examining magistrate afforded no evidence whatever of an existing legal marriage on the part of the woman, there being no allegation in the complaint of such marriage.^" § 1971. Hearsay — Woman's statement. — Statements made by the woman involved, not in the presence of the defendant, that she was a married woman, that her husband was living at a certain place, are not competent against the defendant.'^ § 1972. Evidence of marriage — ^Sufficiency. — The only direct proof adduced at the trial of the marriage of the parties charged with the offense was that of the woman defendant, which was as follows: I was married to Seth Littlefield two years ago by Charles Littlefield' at' his house. .1 have not seen my husband since I married him: Held not sufficient proof of a legal marriage on her part, there being no proof that the person performing the marriage had any author- ity to solemnize marriages.'^ == P. V. Imes, 110 Mich. 250, 68 N. " S. v. Austin, 108 N. C. 780, 13 W. 157; Owens v. S., 94 Ala. 97, 10 S. E. 219. So. 669; Cook v. S., 11 Ga. 53, 56 Am. =° S. v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171, 2 Green D. 410; S. V. Medbury, 8 R. I. 543; C. R. 461. S. V. McDonald, 25 Mo. 176; Craw- "Whicker v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. ford's Case, 7 Me. 57; Underbill Cr. W. 47. Ev., § 383. See Com. v. Morrissey, ''The evidence in the following 175 Mass. 264, 56 N. B. 285; S. v. cases was held sufficient to prove Butts, 107 Iowa 653, 78 N. W. 687; the marriage of the defendant: S. Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 16. v. Clark, 54 N. H. 456; Powell v. S. ='S. V. Rinehart, 106 N. C. 787, 11 (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. 504; Henderson S. E. 512; Frost v. Com., 48 Ky. 362; v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 45 S. W. 707. But Gore v. S., 58 Ala. 391; S. v. Berry, not sufficient in the following: S. 24 Mo. App. 466; S. v. McGuire, 50 v. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155, 36 Am. D. Iowa 153. 742; "Webb v. S., 24 Tex. App. 164, §1973 ADULTERY. 507 §1973. Evidence of divorce.— Where the defendant, on a charge of adultery, relied upon a divorce from his wife as a defense, and the decree of such divorce not showing affirmatively that the court ren- dering it had jurisdiction, it is'proper to show that the court did not in fact have jurisdiction to grant the decree." § 1974. Unchastity of woman, competent. — On the trial of a man charged with adultery it is competent to show that the general reputa- tion of the female involved was that of an unchaste woman.*^ § 1975. Other acts of adultery. — Prior acts of improper familiarity or of adultery between the parties, whether occurring in the same jurisdiction or not, and even subsequent acts which tend to show a continued illicit relation between ihem, may be shown in evidence as characterizing the acts and conduct of the parties as to the partic- ular offense charged in the indictment.*^ § 1976. Other acts incompetent. — The rule of law is that where the charge is one act of adultery only in a single count, to which evidence has been given, the prosecution is not permitted afterwards to introduce evidence of other acts committed at different times and places.** But evidence of other acts of adultery than that alleged in the indictment are competent to show the disposition and conduct of the accused in reference to the act charged.*^ But evidence of other 5 S. "W. 651; S. v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171 Ind. 551, 29 N. E. 34; P. v. Skutt, (confession); Ham's Case, 11 Me. 96 Mich. 449, 56 N. W. 11; Com. v. 391 (admission); P. v. Isham, 109 Bell, 166 Pa. St. 405, 31 Atl. 123; Mich. 72, 67 N. W. 819 (confession); Com. v. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285; S. S. V. CofCee, 39 Mo. App. 56 (repu- v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; S. v. Hen- tation). derson, 84 Iowa 161, 50 N. W. 758; " S. V. Fleak, 54 Iowa 429, 6 N. W. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 381. 689. -"2 Greenl. Ev., § 47; S. v. Dono- «Com. V. Gray, 129 Mass. 474, 37 van, 61 Iowa 278, 16 N. W. 130, 4 Am. R. 378; Blackman v. S., 36 Ala. Am. C. R. 28; S. v. Bates, 10 Conn. 295. 372. See S. v. Smith, 108 Iowa 440 « Crane v. P., 168 111. 399, 48 N. 79 N. "W. 115. E. 54; Snover v. S., 64 N. J. L. 65, « S. v. Briggs, 68 Iowa 416 27 N 44 Atl. 850; Proper v. S., 85 Wis. W. 358; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 384- S 615, 55 N. W. 1035; Callison v. S., v. Bridgman, 49 Vt. 202 20 Am' r' 37 Tex. Cr. 211, 39 S. W. 300; 2 124; S. v. . Williams, 76 Me. 480- Greenl. Ev., § 47; S. v. Bridgman, 49 S. v. Guest, 100 N. C. 410 6 S E Vt. 202; P. V. Patterson, 102 Cal. 253. See S. v. Marvin, 35 N H 22-' 239, 36 Pac. 436; LefEorge v. S., 129 Brevaldo v. S., 21 Fla. 789 ' ' 508 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW, §1977 acts of intimacy two years before the offense charged in the indictment is not competent, being too remote.*" § 1977. Variance — ^Living together. — Evidence that the offense was committed while "living together" will not support an indictment charging that the offense was committed "without living together."*' § 1978. Witness — ^Wife incompetent. — On a charge of adultery the wife of the defendant is not a competent witness against her husband and is also incompetent to make the complaint against him.** But in some jurisdictions the wife is made a competent witness by stat- ute.*» " P. V. Hendrickson, 53 Mich. 525, 19 N. W. 169; P. v. Davis, 52 Mich. 569, 18 N. W. 362; P. v. Fowler, 104 Mich. 449, 62 N. W. 572. Contra, S. V. Potter, 52 Vt. 33 ; S. v. Guest, 100 N. C. 410, 6 S. B. 253. The evidence in the following cases was held sufficient to sustain convictions of adultery: S. v. Chancy, 110 N. C. 507, 14 S. E. 780; P. v. Montague, 71 Mich. 447. 39 N. W. 585; S. v. Rine- hart, 106 N. C. 787, 11 S. E. 512; Starke v. S., 97 Ga. 193, 23 S. E. 832; Com. v. Holt, 121 Mass. 61; S. V. Ean, 90 Iowa 534, 58 N. W. 898; Com. v. Mosier, 135 Pa. St. 221, 19 Atl. 943. But not sufficient in the following: S. v. Pope, 109 N. C. 849, 13 S. E. 700; Weems v. S., 84 Ga. 461, 11 S. E. 503; S. v. Chaney, 110 Iowa 199, 81 N. W. 454; S. v. Way, 6 Vt. 311; S. V. Waller, 80 N. C. 401. "Wood V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 235. " S. V. Berlin, 42 Mo. 572; Thomas V. S., 14 Tex. App. 70; Miner v. P., 58 111. 59, 1 Green C. R. 656; Com. V. Jailer, 1 Grant (Pa.) 218. See Starke v. S., 97 Ga. 193, 23 S. E. 832; In re Smith, 2 Okl. 153, 37 Pac. 1099; Underhill Cr. Bv., § 382. " S. V. Hazen, 39 Iowa 649; S. v. VoUander, 57 Minn. 225, 58 N. W. 878; S. V. Briggs, 68 Iowa 416, 27 N. W. 358. CHAPTEK XLVIII. BIGAMY. 'Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 1979-1983 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 1983-1991 III. Indictment, §§ 1992-1998 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 1999-2007 V. Witnesses, §§ 2008-2009 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 1979. Bigamy deined. — It is the unlawful marriage during the existence of a previous marriage which constitutes the crime of big- amy, although the defendant may never have had carnal knowledge of the second woman and may have been immediately arrested after the second marriage.^ Bigamy may be defined as the crime of going through the marriage ceremony with another while a former husband or wife is living and not divorced, knowing or having reason to believe that the former spouse is still alive. The material facts are the first and second marriage and the fact that the first consort was alive and undivorced at the date of the void marriage."* § 1980. When complete. — Cohabitation or sexual intercourse under the second marriage is not essential to establish bigamy. The offense is complete when the unlawful marriage is consummated.^ •Nelms V. S., 84 Ga. 467, 10 S. E. v. Com., 81 Pa. St. 428; Beggs v S 1087, 20 Am. R. 377; 3 Greenl. Ev., 55 Ala. 108; Cox v. S., 117 Ala. 103' § 203; 4 Bl. Com. 164; Gise v. Com., 23 So. 806; S. v. Nadal, 69 Iowa 81 Pa. St. 428; Beggs v. S., 55 Ala. 478, 29 N. W. 451; Nelms v. S 84 108. Ga. 466, 10 S. E. 1087, 20 Am. R. "Underbill Cr. Ev., § 398, citing 377; S. v. Patterson, 2 Ired. (N C ) Halbrook v. S., 34 Ark. 511, 517; P. 346, 38 Am. D. 699. See P. v Mc- V. Chase, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 256, 260. Quaid, 85 Mich. 123, 48 N. W. 161 "Scoggins V. S., 32 Ark. 205; Gise (509) 510 hughes' criminal law. § 1981 § 1981. Marriage by consent. — Marriage by consent, without sol- emnization, followed by mutual assumption of marital rights, duties and obligations, is a legal marriage, and is sufficient foundation for a charge of bigamy on a second marriage.* § 1982. Common law marriage. — In some of the states the courts hold that a marriage legal at common law is, recognized as valid and binding.^ When a marriage, legal at common law, is sought to be shown on which to base a conviction for bigamy, all the elements to constitute such common law marriage must be proven. There must be evidence of a contract per verba depresenti with proof of cohabita- tion.' Article II. Matters of Defense. § 1983. Advice before second marriage. — Advice given by a lawyer or other person, and relied upon by the accused, that because he and his wife were by mutual consent separated and living apart he might marry again, is no defense to a charge of bigamy.^ § 1984. Belief that marriage was void. — That the defendant be- lieved his marriage to his wife was void and that he was released from his marriage to her because of her absence, is no defense to a charge of bigamy.* § 1985. Second marriage void. — The fact that the second marriage has taken place between parties who, if single, would be incapable of contracting marriage, constitutes no defense to a charge of bigamy.* § 1986. Marriage good without ceremony. — The fact that the min- ister who solemnized the marriage rites was not properly ordained *P. V. Beevers, 99 Cal. 286, 33 Pac. 33 Pac. 844, 9 Am. C. R. 142; Hayes 844, 9 Am. C. R. 142. See Dale v. v. P., 25 N. Y. 390; S. v. Bittick, 103 S., 88 Ga. 552, 15 S. B. 287. Mo. 183, 15 S. W. 325. See also S. ' Hilar v. P., 156 111. 519, 41 N. B. v. Gonce, 79 Mo. 600, 4 Am. C. R. 181 (citing Port v. Port, 70 111. 484; 68. Hebblethwaite v. Hepworth, 98 111. ' S. v. Hughes, 58 Iowa 165, 11 N. 126; Cartwright v. McGown, 121 111. W. 706; P. v. Weed, 96 N. Y. 625, 1 388, 12 N. E. 737); S. v. Robbins, 6 N. Y. Cr. 349. Ired. (N. C.) 23, 44 Am. D. 64. But "Medrano v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 214, see P. V. Mendenhall, 119 Mich. 404, 22 S. W. 684, 40 Am. R. 775. 78 N. W. 325. » P. V. Brown, 34 Mich. 339, 22 » Hilar v. P., 156 111. 521, 41 N. E. Am. R. 531. 181. See P. V. Beavers, 99 Cal. 286, § 1987 BIGAMY. 511 as such minister can not avail as a defense. It is well settled that his open claim of being a minister, and the fact that he was gen- erally understood and recognized as such, are all that is necessary.^** A marriage is good without any ceremony and by the mere consent of the parties, if they intend marriage, and that intent sufficiently ap- pears; provided, such consent and intent must be followed up by actual cohabitation thereunder as man and wife.^^ § 1987. Religious belief — Polygamous. — The religious belief of a person can not be accepted as a defense on a charge of bigamy or polygamous marriage.^'' § 1988. Void divorce. — If the particular decree of divorce upon which the accused relied was illegal and void, because made by a court . having no jurisdiction, it was no defense against the consequences of a second marriage, whatever may have been his belief or motives , in respect of the validity of the decree. His mistake was one of , law and not of fact.^' § 1989. First marriage void. — It is a good defense to a charge of bigamy that the first marriage was void, though otherwise if merely voidable.^* The accused married a second time while his lawful wife was living, and from whom he had not been divorced. After his first ,wife had died he deserted his second wife and married a third one. On a charge of bigamy for marrying the third wife he was entitled to an acquittal, because his second marriage was void.^" "Taylor v. S., 52 Miss. 84, 2 Am. 247; Russell v. S., 66 Ark. 185, 49 C. R. 15, citing Hayes v. P., 25 N. Y. S. W. 821. When divorce is a de- 390, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 325, 82 Am. fense, see Thompson v. S., 28 Ala. D. 364. See also Robinson v. Com., 12; Hood v. S., 56 Ind. 263, 26 Am. 6 Bush (Ky.) 309; S. v. Davis, 109 R. 21. See also the following St. C. 780, 14 S. B. 55; Carmichael cases: Van Fossen v. S., 37 Ohio S. V. S., 12 Ohio St. 553; S. v. Ahhey, 317, 41 Am. R. 507; P. v. Dawell, 25 29 Vt. 60, 67 Am. D. 754. Mich. 247, 12 Am. R. 260; P. v. " Taylor v. S., 52 Miss. 84, 2 Am. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78, 32 Am. R. 274 C. R. 15; Kirk v. S., 65 Ga. 159. See "Beggs v. S., 55 Ala. 108; P. v. McReynolds v. S., 5 Cold. (Tenn.) McQuaid, 85 Mich. 123, 48 N. "W. 18; Williams v. S., 67 Ga. 260; Scog- 161; S. v. Moore, 1 Ohio Dec. R. 171. gins V. S., 32 Ark. 205. See Walls v. S., 32 Ark. 565; P. v '''Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145; Slack, 15 Mich. 193. See also P. v TJ. S. V. Reynolds, 1 Utah 226; Beevers, 99 Cal. 286, 33 Pac. 844- Church, etc., v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1, 10 Shafher v. S., 20 Ohio 1; S. v Cone' S. Ct. 792. 86 Wis. 498, 57 N. W. 50; Underhill "S. V. Armington, 25 Minn. 29; Cr. Ev., § 398; Tucker v. P., 122 111 Davis V. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 318; 583, 13 N. E. 809. Tucker v. P., 122 111. 583, 13 N. B. " S. v. 'Moore, 1 Ohio Dee. R 171 809. See also P. v. Dowell, 25 Mich. 3 West. Law J. 134; Halbrook v S ' 512 hughes' criminal law. § 1990 § 1990. Prohibited from second marriage. — Where a divorced per- son is prohibited from marrying again without leave of the court but goes into another state and is there lawfully married to a second woman, he will not be guilty of bigamy in taking such second wife into the state prohibiting such marriage and there living with her.^' § 1991. Seven years absence. — The accused married a second hus- band within seven years after she had been deserted by her first hus- band, in good faith and upon reasonable grounds believing her first husband to be dead : Held a good def ense.^^ If, at the time of the trial of the accused, seven years have elapsed and the woman has not been heard from, the law presumes that she is dead.^^ Article III. Indictment. ^ 1992. lawful wife living.^On a charge of bigamy it is not nec- essary to allege in the indictment that the lawful wife of the de- fendant was still living at the time of the second marriage. The in- dictment alleging that the marriage relation entered into by the lawful marriage still exists, is sufficient.^" § 1993. Second and first marriage. — The indictment failing to al- lege the existence of the second marriage, is fatally defective.^" The indictment alleging that the defendant unlawfully, willfully and feloniously, being a married man, did marry a certain woman, naming her, during the life of his first wife, naming her, and stating her maiden name, he, the said defendant, then and there, well knowing that his said first wife was still living, and he, the said defendant, not 34 Ark. 511, 36 Am. R. 17. See P. v. See P. v. Meyer, 8 N. Y. St. 256; Chase, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 256. Reynolds v. S., 58 Neb. 49, 78 N. W. " Com. v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 483. Am. R. 509; Com. v. Graham, 157 " Squire v. S., 46 Ind. 459, 2 Green Mass. 73, 31 N. E. 706. C. R. 728. See 4 Bl. Com. 164; Bar- " Queen v. Tolson, L. R. 23 Q. B. ber v. S., 50 Md. 161. Div. 168, 8 Am. C. R. 59; Squire v. " S. v. Hughes, 58 Iowa 165, 11 N. S., 46 Ind. 459, 2 Green C. R. 727; W. 706; Hiler v. P., 156 111. 511, 41 Com. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N. E. 181; Kopke v. P., 43 Mich. 41, N. E. 846, 47 Am. R. 468; S. v. 4 N. W. 551; S. v. Armington, 25 Stank, 10 W. L. B. (Ohio) 17; Reg. Minn. 29. See Cathron v. S., 40 V. Moore, 13 Cox C. C. 544, 2 Am. Fla. 468, 24 So. 496. C. R. 608. Contra, Jones v. S., 67 '"In re Watson, 19 R. I. 342, 33 Ala. 84; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 401. Atl. 873. § 1994 BIGAMY. 513 having been at the time of his second marriage lawfully divorced from his first wife, suflBciently avers the marriage to his first wife.''^ § 1994. Negativing exception. — ^In drawing an indictment for big- amy it is not necessary to negative the exceptions of the statute unless the exceptions are part of the description of the ofEense and in the- same clause.-^ Where the statute provides that the absence of the; husband or wife when not heard from for a number of years, usually seven, shall be a defense to a charge of bigamy, such absence need not be negatived in the indictment.''^ § 1995. Marrying after divorce. — Where a statute provides that a divorced person who is the guilty party in such divorce case, shall be guilty of bigamy if he marries again during the lifetime of his di- vorced wife, the indictment must allege such divorce and that the defendant was the guilty party in such divorce, and all other acts necessary to bring the case within the terms of the statute.^* § 1996. Must allege woman, not wife. — Under a statute which for- bids either the divorced husband or wife marrying any other person within a stated period of time from the date of the decree divorcing them, an indictment charging bigamy for marrying another person within the prohibited time is defective in failing to negative the fact that the alleged bigamous wife was a person other than the wife oiE the defendant at the time the second marriage occurred.^' § 1997. First wife living— Averment. — An indictment alleging that the defendant at the time of his second marriage "well knew that his first wife was living," is not equivalent to the averment that such wife was living.^' § 1998. First marriage— Time and place, and name.— In an indict- ment for bigamy it is not necessary to allege the time and place of the "S. v. Davis, 109 N. C. 780, 14 S. 551; Barber v. S., 50 Md. 161; S v E- 55. Williams, 20 Iowa 98. ^Stangleln v. S., 17 Ohio St. 453; «Com. v. Richardson, 126 Mass S. V. Williams, 20 Iowa 98; Kopke 34, 2 Am. C. R. 612 V. P., 43 Mich. 41, 4 N. W. 551; S. v. == Niece v. Ter., 9 Okl. 535 60 Pac Abbey, 29 Vt. 60, 67 Am. D. 754; 300. Com. V. Jennings, 121 Mass. 47, 23 "Prichard v. P 149 111 50 36 Am. R. 249; Fleming v. P., 27 N. Y. N. E. 103; Hiler v. P., 156 111 515 41 ^^£'i, ^^r'^- ^'■- (N-Y-^ 352- N. E. 181; S. v. Jenkins, 139 Mo ^Fleming v. P., 27 N. Y. 329; 535, 41 S. W. 220; McAfee v S 38 Kopke v. P., 43 Mich. 41, 4 N. W. Tex. Cr. 124, 41 S. W. 627. " '' hughes' c. l. — 33 514 hughes' criminal law. § 1999 first marriage.^^ But the time and place of tlie first marriage must be proved if alleged in the indictment.^^ It is not necessary to allege in the indictment the name of the person whom the defendant first married.^* Article IV. ' Evidence ; Variance. § 1989. Proof of marriage by cohabitation. — Marriage, in a prose- cution for bigamy, may be proved by cohabitation and confessions, but the proof must be clear, strong and convincing. And it is not fibsolutely necessary that the prosecution shall produce either the record of marriage or the testimony of some person who witnessed the ceremony.^" The existence of the marriage relations may be shown by general reputation in the community where the parties re- £ide.^^ § 2000. Proof of marriage by declarations. — In a prosecution for l)igamy it is competent to prove the former marriage by the admissions and declarations of the defendant. Such is the rule by the weight of authority, but in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Connecticut and New York a contrary doctrine has been expressed.^^ Marriage may be =' Com. V. McGrath, 140 Mass. 296, Dumas v. S., 14 Tex. App. 464, 46 6 N. E. 515; S. v. Hughes, 58 Iowa Am. R. 241; S. v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 165, 11 N. W. 706; S. v. Nadal, 69 350, 19 S. W. 656; U. S. v. Harris, Iowa 478, 29 N. W. 451; P. v. Giesea, 5 Utah 436, 17 Pac. 75; S. v. Hilton, 61 Cal. 53; S. v. Hughes, 35 Kan. 3 Rich. L. (S. C.) 434, 45 Am. D. 626, 12 Pac. 28, 57 Am. R. 19; S. 783; Stanglein v. S., 17 Ohio St. 453; T. Bray, 13 Ired. (N. C.) 289; S. S. v. Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 29 N. "W. ■V. Armington, 25 Minn. 29. Contra, 451. But see Green v. S., 21 Fla. Davis V. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 318, 2 403, 58 Am. R. 670; Underhill Cr. Am. G. R. 163; Williams v. S., 44 Ev., § 404. Ala. 24; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 204; S. v. =^17. S. v. Higgerson, 46 Fed. 750; La Bore, 26 Vt. 765. See Faustre Patterson v. S., 17 Tex. App. 102; V. Com., 92 Ky. 34, 13 Ky. L. 347, 17 U. S. v. Tenney (Ariz.), 8 Pac. 295. S. W. 189. See TJ. S. v. Langford, 2 Idaho 519, ^» Tucker v. P., 117 111. 88, 7 N. E. 21 Pac. 409. 61. ''' Squire v. S., 46 Ind. 459, 2 Green ""Watson V. S., 13 Tex. App. 76; C. R. 725; Lowery v. P., 172 111. 470, Hutchins v. S., 28 Ind. 34. Contra, 50 N. E. 165; Miles v. U. S., 103 U. Davis V. Com., 13 Bush (Ky.) 318. S. 304; Wolverton v. S., 16 Ohio "Langtry v. S., 30 Ala. 536; Wil- 173; S. v. Gallagher, 20 R. I. 266, liams V. S., 54 Ala. 131, 25 Am. R. 38 Atl. 655; O'Neale v. Com., 17 665; Wolverton v. S., 16 Ohio 173, Gratt. (Va.) 583; S. v. Melton, 120 47 Am. D. 373; S. v. Seals, 16 Ind. N. C. 591, 26 S. E. 933; Underhill 252; South v. P., 98 111. 265; S. v. Cr. Ev., § 403, citing Gahagan v. P., Armington, 25 Minn. 29; Com. v. 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 378, 383; P. v. Jackson, 11 Bush (Ky.) 679; Hal- McQuaid, 85 Mich. 123, 48 N. W. ■brook V. S.. 34 Ark. 511, 36 Am. R. 161; Hayes v. P., 25 N. Y. 390; S. v. 17; P. v. Wentworth, 4 N. Y. Cr. 207; Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 29 N. W. 451; § 2001 BIGAMY. 515 proved by reputation, declaration and conduct of the parties and other circumstances usually accompanying that relation. Correspondence between the parties, addressing each other as husband and wife, is competent.'^ §2001. Witnesses at marriage, — The testimony of witnesses at the marriage is competent to show marriage, or a marriage certificate is competent.'* But the testimony of witnesses who were present at the ceremony can not overcome positive proof that the marriage was illegal and void under the laws of the country where the ceremony was per- formed.^' § 2002. Proving wife living. — On an indictment for bigamy the prosecution must prove to. the satisfaction of the jury that the wife or husband was alive at the time of the second marriage. This fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" § 2003. Correspondence as evidence. — On a charge of bigamy, let- ters written by the defendant to his first wife, or to others relating to her, are admissible to show the relation he bore to her.'' § 2004. Proving former marriage. — On the trial of a charge of bigamy, a petition for divorce which had been filed by the defendant is competent evidence to prove the former marriage between the par- ties.'' §2005. Public records competent. — Eegisters of births and mar- riages made pursuant to 4he statutes of any of the states are S. v. Roswell, 6 Conn. 446; S. v. N. E. 846, 47 Am. R. 468; Crane v. Johnson, 12 Minn. 476; S. v. Cooper, S., 94 Tenn. 86, 28 S. W. 317; 103 Mo. 266, 15 S. W. 327. Mitchell v. Com., 78 Ky. 204; Hilar =* Tucker v. P., 122 111. 592, 13 N. v. P., 156 111. 511, 41 N. E. 181; P. B. 809; Waldrop v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 v. Feilen, 58 Cal. 218, 41 Am. R. S. "W. 130; Taylor v. S., 52 Miss. 84, 258; S. v. Goodrich, 14 W. Va. 834; 2 Am. C. R. 17; S..v. Swartz, 18 Gorman v. S., 23 Tex. 646. Ohio C. C. 892. ='Com. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, '♦Com. V. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N. E. 846, 47 Am. R. 468; Tucker 9 Am. C. R. 410, 40 N. B. 846; S. v. v. P., 122 111. 583, 13 N. E. 809; Com. Hughes, 58 Iowa 165, 11 N. W. 706. v. Caponi, 155 Mass. 534, 30 N. B. See Jackson v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 82. 232; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 402. ^Adklnson v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 296, =»Canale v. P., 177 111. 219, 52 N. 30 S. "W. 357; P. v. Beevers, 99 Cal. B. 310. 286, 33 Pac. 844; S. v. Goodrich, 14 " Squire v. S., 46 Ind. 459, 2 Green W. Va. 834. See S. v. Ashley, 37 C. R. 725; Parker v. S., 77 Ala. 47; Ark. 403. Com. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 516 hughes' criminal law. § 2006 competent evidence."' If the registers of births and marriages are not made by public authority and under the sanction of official duty, they, or exemplified copies of them, are not competent evidence.** On a charge of bigamy the record evidence of marriage is admissible, and not in violation of the constitutional provision that the defendant has the right to meet the witnesses face to faee.*^ § 2006. Children born, competent. — Evidence that children were born to the defendant by his alleged bigamous wife is competent on a charge of bigamy.*^ § 2007. Variance, when. — The indictment alleged the marriage of the accused to his first wife and that while she was still his wife he unlawfully married a second woman. The evidence showed that the accused had been lawfully married to his first wife and that she afterwards procured a divorce from him for his misconduct and that after the divorce he then married the second wife: Held a vari- Aeticle V. Witnesses. § 2008. Competency of witness. — To test the competency of the second wife as a witness, she may be examined on her voir dire, as to the void marriage.** "If the first marriage is clearly proved, and not controverted, then the person with whom the second marriage was had, may be admitted as a witness to prove the second marriage as well as other facts, not tending to defeat the first, or to legalize the second."*^ The first wife is not a competent witness against her hus- band on a charge of bigamy; nor can she make complaint against "1 Greenl. Bv., § 484; Tucker v. "Com. v. Richardson, 126 Mass. P., 117 111. 91, 7 N. E. 51; 3 Greenl. 34. Ev., § 204; S. v. Matlock, 70 Iowa " S. v. Gordon, 46 N. J. L. 432, 4 229, 30 N. W. 495; Johnson v. S., 60 Am. C. R. 4; Salter v. S., 92 Ala. 68, Ark. 308, 30 S. W. 31; S. v. White, 9 So. 550; Seeley v. Engell, 13 N. Y. 19 Kan. 445. 542; 2 McClaln Or. L., § 1085. "Tucker v. P., 117 111. 91, 7 N. E. "3 Greenl. Ev., § 206; Lowery Y. 51; Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 434; P., 172 111. 471, 50 N. E. 165; Com. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 405. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N. B. "Tucker v. P., 122 111. 592, 13 N. 846, 47 Am. R. 468; Miles v. U. S., E. 809; Jackson v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 103 U. S. 304. See 4 Bl. Com. 164; 232; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 405. S. v. Nadal, 69 Iowa 478, 29 N. W. "Waldrop v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. 451. W. 130. § 2009 BIGAMY. 617 him on such charge. Bigamy is not that kind of injury to the wife which would render her testimony competent.*" § 2009. Statute of limitations. — It is very clear that at common law the crime of bigamy occurs and is complete when the second mar- riage is accomplished. It follows that the statute of limitations would commence to run from that time. This has never been questioned." "P. V. Quanstrom, 93 Mich. 254, 181; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 206; 4 Bl. Com. 53 N. W. 165; S. v. McCance, 110 Mo. 164; Underbill Cr. Ev., §§ 400, 406. 398, 19 S. W. 648; Bassett v. U. S., But see S. v. Sloan, 55 Iowa 217, 7 137 U. S. 496, 11 S. Ct. 165; S. v. N. W. 516. Hughes, 58 Iowa 165, 11 N. W. 706; "Gise v. Com., 81 Pa. St. 428. . Hilar v. P., 156 111. 511, 41 N. E. CHAPTEK XLIX. BASTARDY. Art. I. Object of Proceedings, §§ 3010-2013 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2014-2018 III. Complaint or. Information, ....§§ 2019-2030 IV. Evidence; Verdict, §§ 2031-2061 V. Appeal, §§ 2062-2063 Article I. Object of Proceedings. § 2010. Statutory provisions. — In perhaps all the states there are statutory provisions to compel the father to furnish support for his bastard child or pay the expenses incident to its birth, the object being to indemnify or protect the town or county as well as to afEord sup- port for the child. ^ § 2011. Bastardy — Civil case. — In some, if not most of the states, a prosecution under the bastardy law is a civil and not a criminal proceeding, but is usually placed on the criminal docket.'' The rules governing civil actions apply to bastardy proceedings.* 'S. v. Such, 53 N. J. L. 351, 21 Atl. Rich v. P., 66 111. 513; P. v. Nixon, 852; Hauskins v. P., 82 111. 193; 40 111. 30; Clark v. Carey, 41 Neb. Kelly v. P., 29 111. 290; Robinson v. 780, 60 N. W. 78, 9 Am. C. R. 119; S., 128 Ind. 397, 27 N. B. 750; Kenis- Baker v. S., 65 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. ton V. Rowe, 16 Me. 38. See Burgen 167; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 523. Con- v. Straugban, 30 Ky. 583; Baker v. tra, S, v. Ballard, 122 N. C. 1024, 29 S., 65 Wis. 50, 26 N. W. 167. S. B. 899; S. v. Bruce, 122 N. C. 1040, = Scharf v. P., 134 III. 243, 24 N. 30 S. B. 141. E. 761; Maynard v. P., 135 111. 416, ' S. v. Johnson, 89 Iowa 1, 56 N. 25 N. B. 740; Bell v. Ter., 8 Okl. 75, W. 404; Hodge v. Sawyer, 85 Me. 56 Pac. 853; Allison v. P., 45 111. 37; 285, 27 Atl. 153; S. v. Brewer, 38 S. McCoy V. P., 71 111. Ill; Mann v. P.. C. 263, 16 S. E. 1001; Hodgson v. 35 111. 467; Williams v. S., 117 Ala. Nickell, 69 Wis. 308, 34 N. W. 118; 199, 23 So. 42; Rawlings v. P., 102 Richardson v. P., 31 111. 170; S. v. 111. 478; Davis v. P., 50 111. 199; Hickerson, 72 N. C. 421. See also (518) § 2012 BASTARDY. 519 § 2012. Non-resident mother. — A non-resident woman may main- tain a suit for bastardy against the putative father of her child.* A non-resident complainant will not be required to give bond for costs as in other cases. ° § 2013. Place of child's birth. — In order to give the court .juris- diction it must appear that the child was born in the state where proceedings are instituted." And the proceedings should be com- menced jn the county where the defendant resides.' Article II. Matters of Defense. § 2014. Death of child during suit.— The death of the child dur- ing the pendency of bastardy proceedings does not abate the action and in no manner releases the defendant.^ But if the child is bom dead the action should be dismissed.® §2015. Death of mother. — The death of the mother after com- mencing suit against the accused does not abate the action.^" § 2016. Twins bom — Judgment. — After commencing suit twins were born, and on conviction, judgment was properly entered against the defendant the same as if the mother had given birth to but one child." Stoppert v. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 9 ; Tanner v. Allen, 16 Ky. 25 ; Egle- N. W. 382; S. v. Severson, 78 Iowa son v. Battles, 26 Vt. 548. See Hodge 653, 43 N. W. 533; S. v. Nichols, 29 v. Sawyer, 85 Me. 285, 27 Atl. 153. Minn. 357, 13 N. W. 153; S. v. Ed- Contra, Sheay v. S., 74 Md. 52, 21 wards, 110 N. C. 511, 14 S. B. 741; Atl. 607; Cooper v. S., 4 Blackf. Myers v. StafCord, 114 N. C. 234, 19 (Ind.) 316. S. E. 764; P. v. Phalen, 49 Mich. 492, 'Carter v. Kilburn, 8 Ky. 463. 13 N. W. 830; Dickerson v. Gray, 2 = Hauskins v. P., 82 111. 193; Hin- Blackf. (Ind.) 230; Harper v. S., 101 ton v. Dickinson, 19 Ohio St.' 583; Ind. 109; Young v. Makepeace, 103 Satterwhite v. S., 32 Ala. 578; Jerdee Mass. 50. V. S., 36 Wis. 170; Smith v. Lint, 37 'Mings V. P., Ill 111. 99; Clark v. Me. 546; Malson v. S., 75 Ind. 142; Carey, 41 Neb. 780, 60 N. W. 78, 9 Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, Am. C. R. 119; Kolbe v. P., 85 111. 56 N. W. 208. 336; Hill v. Wells, 23 Mass. 104; » S. v. Beatty, 61 Iowa 307, 16 N. S. V. Gray, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 274; W. 149; Heifer v. Nelson, 7 Ohio C. Moore v. S., 47 Kan. 772, 28 Pac. C. 263; Hauskins v. P., 82 111. 193, 1072; McGary v. Bevington, 41 Ohio 196. St. 280; La Plant v. P., 60 111. App. "P. v. Nixon, 45 111. 353; P. v. 340; Davis v. Carpenter, 172 Mass, Smith, 17 111. App. 597; Dodge Co. 167, 51- N. E. 530. Contra, Graham v. Kemnitz, 28 Neb. 224, 44 N. W. V. Monsergh, 22 Vt. 543; Sutfin v. P., 184. Contra, Rollins v. Chalmers, 49 43 Mich. 37, 4 N. W. 509. Vt. 515. " Kolbe V. P., 85 111. 337. " Connelly v. P., 81 111. 379. See •Grant v. Barry, 91 Mass. 459; Davis v. S., 58 Ga. 170. Com. V. Bostwick, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 520 hughes' criminal law. § 2017 § 2017. Parties may compromise. — Where the mother of the child and the putative father have made a fair settlement based upon a reasonable consideration, this vi^ill preclude her from maintaining a bastardy proceeding.^ ^ And the giving of a promissory note by the putative father to the mother of the child on condition that she will not institute bastardy proceedings is a good consideration, o|i settlement.^ ^ § 2018. Settlement not a bar. — See the following cases wh'ere such settlement is held not a bar to a prosecution for bastardy:^* Such settlement is not binding where the mother of the child was a minor when she made the settlement and gave a release.^' Article III. Complaint or Information. § 2019. Complaint must be by mother. — The statute of Illinois provides that the mother of the child must make the complaint against the putative father.^* § 2020. Complainant must be unmarried. — Under the statute a complaint for bastardy will be defective if it fails to allege that the mother of the child was a single or unmarried woman.'^ But under the statute of Florida, it is not necessary to allege that the complain- ant was a single woman before her delivery.^* Where a woman in a '^ Black Hawk v. Cotter, 32 Iowa 567; Hale v. Turner, 29 Vt. 350; 125; Martin v. S., 62 Ala. 119. See Com. v. Wicks, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 17. Hendrix v. P., 9 111. App. 42; P. v. "S. v. Baker, 89 Iowa 188, 56 N. Wheeler, 60 111. App. 351; Ingwald- W. 425; Wilson v. Judge, 18 Ala. son v. Skrivsetli, 7 N. D. 388, 75 N. 757; Piekler v. S., 18 Ind. 266; Mal- W. 772; Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 son v. S., 75 Ind. 142. W. Va. 234, 23 S. B. 812; Rohrheimer "Jones v. P., 53 111. 367; Mann v. V. Winters, 126 Pa. St. 253, 17 Atl. P., 35 111. 470; Maynard v. P., 135 606; Coleman v. Frum, 3 Scam. (111.) 111. 416, 25 N. E. 740; Billingsley v. 378; Baker v. Roberts, 14 Ind. 552; Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 S. B. Getztafe V. Seliger, 43 Wis. 297. See 812; Harter v. Johnson, 16 Ind. 271; Com. V. Davis, 69 Ky. 295. Com. v. Cole, 5 Mass. 519; Burgen "Medcalf v. Brown, 77 Ind. 476; v. Straughan. 30 Ky. 583; Bowers y. Hays v. McParlan, 32 Ga. 699; Bur- Wood, 143 Mass. 182, 9 N. E. 534. gen V. Straughan, 30 Ky. 583; "Maynard v. P., 135 111. 416, 25 Abshire v. Mather, 27 Ind. 381; S. N. E. 740; E. D. P. v. S., 18 Fla. 175; V. Noble, 70 Iowa 174, 30 N. W. 396; Andrew v. Catherine, 16 Fla. 830; Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. Edwards v. Knight, 8 Ohio 375. See 234, 23 S. E. 812. Walker v. S., 108 Ala. 56, 19 So. 353. "Com. V. Turner, 34 Ky. 571; S. Contra, Robie v. McNlece, 7 Vt. 419; V. Dougher, 47 Minn. 436, 50 N. W. S. v. Peoples, 108 N. C. 768, 13 S. B. 475; Sherman v. Johnson, 20 Vt. 8. See Smith v. S., 73 Ala. 11. " Williams v. S., 18 Fla. 883. § 2021 BASTARDY. , 521 state of pregnancy makes complaint, accusing one with being the father of her unborn child, she must be unmarried at the time of making the complaint.^* But under a different statute, see eases to the contrary.^" § 2021. Information — Father of child. — The information or com- plaint charging bastardy must allege that the defendant is the father of the child.2^ § 2022. Husband absent seven years. — The absence of a husband for seven years renders his wife an unmarried woman under the bas- tardy law. He will be presumed to be dead.^^ § 2023. Complaint by divorced woman. — A divorced woman, who gives birth to a child which was begotten during her marriage, will be permitted to prosecute a bastardy proceeding and show that her divorced husband is not the father of the child.^' § 2024. Complaint by married woman. — If the complaining wit- ness in a bastardy case is a married woman, it will be incumbent on the prosecution to show that she did not cohabit with her husband and had no opportunity ia cohabit with him during the time the child might have been conceived.^* § 2025. Marriage after delivery. — The marriage of the mother of an illegitimate child after delivery, to one not the father, will not bar her making complaint against the father of such child. ^° § 2026. Complaint may be oral. — The complaint in a bastardy pro- ceeding need not be in writing unless required by statute. ^° ^'P. V. Volksdorf, 112 111. 295; S. W. 553; Sullivan v. Kelly, 85 Mass. V. Brill; 3 Ohio N. P. 311, 6 Ohio Dec. 148. See Com. -v. Wentz, 1 Ashm. 14; S. V. Allison, Phil. L. (N. C.) (Pa.) 269; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 526; 346; Sword v. Nestor, 33 Ky. 453. S. v. McDowell, 101 N. C. 734, 7 iSee Judge v. Kerr, 17 Ala. 328. S. E. 785. "Cuppy v. S., 24 Ind. 389; S. v. ^^^ P. v. Volksdorf , 112 111. 295; Mil- Pettaway, 3 Hawks (N. C.) 623; S. v. ler v. Anderson, 43 Ohio St. 473, 3 Overseer, 24 N. J. L. 533. N. E. 605; S. v. Shoemaker, 62 Iowa ''•Hudson V. S., 104 Ga. 723, 30 343, 17 N. W. 589; Swett v. Stuhbs, S. E. 947. 34 Me. 178; Austin v. Pickett, 9 Ala. " Hall V. Com., 3 Ky. 479. 102. See Judge v. Kerr, 17 Ala. '=Schaffer v. Mueller, 9 W. L. B. 328; Dennison v. Page, 29 Pa. St. (Ohio) 287. See Drennan v. Doug- 420. las, 102 111. 341, 40 Am. R. 595. ^"Curran v. P., 35 111. App. 275; "S. V. Lavin, 80 Iowa 555, 46 N. Smith v. Hayden^ 60 Mass. Ill; 522 hughes' criminal LAM^ § 2027 § 2027. Complaint — Defects waived. — Objections to the complaint must be made before trial, otherwise any defects will be waived.^' § 2028. Complaint or indictment, sufficiency. — In drawing an in- dictment under the statute of Pennsylvania it is not necessary to al- lege the birth of the illegitimate child. ^^ § 2029. Complaint — Contrary to statute. — It is not necessary that the complaint in a bastardy proceeding should conclude contra formam statute.'^'' But it niust be signed and verified under oath.'" § 2030. Amendments permitted. — A bastardy proceeding is within the statute allowing amendments the same as any other civil proceed- ing.'^ Article IV. Evidence; Veedict. § 2031. Preponderance sufficient. — A preponderance of evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a bastardy charge, it being a civil fiuit.'^ § 2032. Acts and statements of defendant. — Any statements made by the defendant admitting the paternity of the child in question are S. v. Overseer, 24 N. J. L. 533. Con- P., 45 IlL 38; Bell v. S., 124 Ala. 94, tra. S. V. Simons, 30 Vt. 620. See 27 So. 414; Mann v. P., 35 III. 467; Cross V. P., 10 Mich. 24; Howard v. McFarland v. P., 72 111. 368; Peak Overseer, 1 Rand. (Va.) 464. v. P., 76 111. 289; Maloney v. P., 38 "Cook V. P., 51 111. 145; S. v. John- 111. 62; S. v. Severson, 78 Iowa 653, son, 89 Iowa 1, 56 N. W. 404; Lena- 43 N. W. 533; Edmond v. S., 25 Fla. hen V. Desmond, 150 Mass. 292, 22 268, 6 So. 58; Harper v. S., 101 Ind, N. E. 903. See Benton v. Starr, 58 109; Semen v. P., 42 Mich. 141, 3 N. Conn. 285, 20 Atl. 450. W. 304; S. v. Romaine, 58 Iowa 46, ^« Gorman v. Com., 124 Pa. St. 536, 11 N. W. 721; Stovall v. S., 56 Tenn. 17 Atl. 26. 597; Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. =°Com. V. Moore, 20 Mass. 194; 392; S. v. Bowen, 14 R. I. 165; Davl- Hopkins v. Plainfield, 7 Conn. 286. son v. Cruse, 47 Neb. 829, 66 N. W. =» Graves v. Adams, 8 Vt. 130. See 823; Dukehart v. Coughman, 36 Neb. Ramo V. Wilson, 24 Vt. 517. 412, 54 N. W. 680; Altschuler v. =' Maynard v. P., 135 111. 430, 25 Algaza, 16 Neb. 631, 21 N. W. 401; N. E. 740; Harrison v. P., 81 111. App. Young v. Makepiece, 103 Mass. 50; 93; P. V. Cole, 113 Mich. 83, 71 N. W. S. v. Bunker, 7 S. D. 639, 65 N. W. 455; Robie v. McNiece, 7 Vt. 419; S. 33; Reynolds v. S., 115 Ind. 421, 17 V. Giles, 103 N. C. 391, 9 S. E. 433; N. E. 909. See Knowles v. Scrib- Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. 392; ner, 57 Me. 495; Underbill Cr. Ev., Ford V. Smith, 62 N. H. 419; Gorman § 524. Contra, see Van Tassel v. S., V. Com.,' 124 Pa. St. 536, 17 AtL 26. 59 Wis. 351, 18 N. W. 328; Com. v. ''P. V. Christman, 66 111. 162; Wentz, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 269; Schaffer Lewis V. P., 82 111. 104; Allison v. v. Mueller, 9 W. L. B. (Ohio) 287. § 2033 BASTARDY. 523 competent evidence against him.^' An attempt or offer of the de- fendant to produce a miscarriage of the prosecutrix is competent evi- dence.'* § 2033. Letters by defendant to prosecutrix. — Letters written by the defendant to the prosecutrix showing intimacy between them, such as a request to meet him at a hotel, are competent.^'' § 2034. Statements of third party. — The declarations of a third person, not made in the presence of the prosecutrix, that the defendant was the father of the child, are not admissible, being hearsay.'® § 2035. Preliminary proceedings as evidence. — The record of a preliminary examination in a bastardy proceeding is competent and may be given in evidence by either of the parties to the cause, or the contents thereof may be shown by parol evidence, if such record is lost.'" § 2036. Husband absent several years. — The absence of the hus- band for several years at a distant place, and having no opportunity to have sexual intercourse with his wife, is strong proof tending to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. '^ § 2037. Intimacy between parties. — Acts or conduct of intimacy between the complainant and defendant are competent on a charge of bastardy — especially at about the time of conception.'^ »» Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. away, 157 Mass. 417, 32 N. E. 653; 392; Moore v. P., 13 111. App. 248. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 533; Wilkins v. See Fuller v. Hampton, 5 Conn. 416; Metcalf, 71 Vt. 103, 41 Atl. 1035. Miene v. P., 'S7 111. App. 589; Under- *'Holf ,v. Fisher, 26 Ohio St. 8; hill Cr. Bv., § 533; Dehler v. S., 22 Underhill Cr. Ev., § 534, citing Stop- Ind. App. 383, 53 N. E. 850. pert v. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. W. »* Nicholson v. S., 72 Ala. 176; Mc- 382. Ilvain V. S., 80 Ind. 69; Miller v. S., '^ Haworth v. Gill, 30 Ohio St. 627; 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. 392. Dean v. S., 29 Ind. 483; Watts v. »=Scharf v. P., 34 111. App. 400; Owens, 62 Wis. 512, 22 N. W. 720. Sullivan v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 387, »» Strickler v. Grass, 32 Neb. 811, 18 N. E. 3; Walker v. S., 92 Ind. 49 N. W. 804; Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 474; Beers v. Jackman, 103 Mass. 69; 20 So. 392; Marks v. S., 101 Ind. 192. See La Matt v. S., 128 Ind. 123, 353; Baker v. S., 69 Wis. 38, 33 N. 27N. E. 346; Williams v. S., 113 Ala. W. 52; Francis v. Rosa, 151 Mass. 58, 21 So. 463. 532, 24 N. B. 1024; Gemmill v. S., '=FarreIl v. Weltz, 160 Mass. 288, 16 Ind. App. 154, 43 N. B. 909; P. 35 N. E. 783; Young v. Makepiece, v. Schilling, 110 Mich. 412, 68 N. 103 Mass. 50. See Prince v. Gund- W. 233; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 528. 524 hughes' criminal law. § 2038 § 2038. Intimacy with other men. — The defendant offered to prove that the prosecutrix called on another man and said : I am in a fam- ily way, and what are you going to do about it? Held error to ex- clude the offered evidence.*" The prosecutrix having testified that she became pregnant on April 20, 1889, by the defendant, it was competent for him to show that she had been intimate with another man from the fall of the previous year, especially if the other man had testified to having sexual intercourse with her three or four times between March 20 and May 20, 1889." § 2039. Statement of woman. — That the complaining witness had stated to others that it was necessary for girls to get in a family way in order to compel some young men to marry them, is held incompe- tent ; but it might have been competent on impeachment had her atten- tion been properly called to it on cross-examination.*^ § 2040. Other acts of intercourse. — On a charge of bastardy it is competent to show repeated acts of sexual intercourse between the parties, prior to the time of the alleged conception, as tending to show the probability of such intercourse at subsequent times when oppor- tunity offered.*' § 2041. Intercourse with other men. — On cross-examination the woman may be asked whether within the period of gestation she has had intercourse with other men, for the purpose of overcoming the probability of the accused being the father of her child.** If the mother of the child had sexual intercourse with other men at or about the time she became pregnant, the defendant may show the fact.*' "McCoy v. P., 71 111. 112. See S. v. Smith, 47 Minn. 475, 50 N. W. Common v. P., 28 111. App. 230. 605; P. v. Keefer, 103 Mich. 83, 61 "Maynard v. P., 135 111. 433, 25 N. W. 338; Baker v. S., 69 Wis. 32, N. E. 740; Gaunt v. S., 52 N. J. L. 33 N. "W. 52; Norfolk v. Gaylord, 28 178, 19 Atl. 135; McCoy v. P., 65 Conn. 309; Kremling v. Lallman, 16 111. 439; P. V. Kamlnsky, 73 Mich. Neb. 280, 20 N. W. 383. 637, 41 N. W. 833; Williams v. S., "Holcomb v. P., 79 111. 414; Wil- 113 Ala. 58, 21 So. 463. See S. v. liams v. S., 113 Ala. 58, 21 So. 463; Granger, 87 Iowa 355, 54 N. W. 79; Davison v. Cruse, 47 Neb. 829, 66 Davison v. Cruse, 47 Neb. 829, 66 N. W. 823; Humphrey v. S., 78 Wis. N. W. 823; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 532. 569, 47 N. W. 836; Benham v. S., 91 ^Uohnson v. P., 140 111. 354, 29 N. Ind. 82; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 532. B. 895. « P. V. Kamlnsky, 73 Mich. 637, 41 "Ramey v. S., 127 Ind. 243, 26 N. W. 833; Easdale v. Reynolds, 143 N. E. 818; Houser v. S., 93 Ind. 228. Mass. 126, 9 N. E. 13; Stoppert v. See Holcomb v. P., 79 111. 409; S. v. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. E. 382; Wheeler, 104 N. C. 893, 10 S. E. 491; Holcomb v. P., 79 111. 409; Meyncke § 2042 BASTARDY. 525 But if the defendant admits having intercourse with the woman about the same time others had intercourse with her, then evidence as to such others is not competent.*' § 2042. Female out late with other men. — It is competent to show that the prosecutrix was out late at night with men and boys during the month she claimed she became pregnant by the defendant.*' § 2043. Exhibiting child as evidence. — Some courts have held that an infant two years old may be exhibited to the jury, but a mere babe of two or three months can not be shown.** § 2044. Child's resemblance. — Where both the accused and the child are before the jury, any resemblance or not between them may be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the accused is the father of the child, but the testimony of witnesses will not be heard on the question of any such resemblance.*' Testimony to show a resemblance between the bastard child and the alleged father is not competent in a bastardy proceeding.''" V. S., 68 Ind, 401; S. v. Warren, 124 Am. R. 192; Crow v. Jordan, 49 Ohio N. C. 807, 32 S. E. 552; Hamilton v. St. 655, 32 N. E. 750; Clark v. Brad- P., 46 Mich. 186, 9 N. W. 247; S. v. street, 80 Me. 454, 15 Atl. 56; Hilton Giles, 103 N. C. 391, 9 S. E. 433; v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 113 (adul- Olson V. Peterson, 33 Neb. 358, 50 tery); Finnegan v. Dugan, 96 Mass. N. W. 155; S. V. Johnson, 89 Iowa 1, 197; Gilmanton v. Ham, 38 N. H. 56 N. W. 404; O'Brian v. S., 14 Ind. 108; Scott v. Donovan, 153 Mass. 469; Fall V. Overseer, 3 Munf. (Va.) 378, 26 N. E. 871 (babe). Contra. 495; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 532. S. v. Carter, 8 Wash. 272, 36 Pac. "S. v. Bennett, 75 N. C. 305; Fall 29; Hanawalt v. S., 64 Wis. 84, 24 V. Overseer, 3 Munf. (Va.) 495. See N. W. 489, 54 Am. R. 588; Overlook Low V. Mitchell, 18 Me. 372; Baker v. Hall, 81 Me. 348, 17 Atl. 169; V. S., 47 Wis. Ill, 2 N. W. 110, 2 Risk v. S., 19 Ind. 152. Am. C. R. 606. "Gaunt v. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, 8 "Maynard v. P., 135 111. 433, 25 Am. C. R. 300, 14 Atl. 600; Jones N. E. 740. See S. v. Borie, 79 Iowa v. Jones, 45 Md. 148; Paulk v. S., 605, 8 Am. C. R. 87, 44 N. W. 824; 52 Ala. 427; S. v. WoodrufC, 67 N. C. S. V. Karver, 65 Iowa 53, 5 Am. C. R. 89; Garvin v. S., 52 Miss. 207; Un- 89, 21 N. W. 161; Burris v. Court, derhill Cr. Ev., § 525; S. v. Britt, 78 48 Neb. 179, 66 N. W. 1131; Hum- N. C. 439. phrey v. S., 78 Wis. 569, 47 N. W. "Keniston v. Rowe, 16 Me. 38; 836. But see Haverstlck v. S., 6 Ind. Gaunt v. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, 8 Am. App. 595, 32 N. E. 785, 34 N. E. 99. C. R. 300, 14 Atl. 600; Eddy v. Gray, See also Houser v. S., 93 Ind. 228; 86 Mass. 435; P. v. Carney, 29 Hun S. V. Lavin, 80 Iowa 555, 46 N. W. (N. Y.) 47. • See Young v. Make- 553; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 54. peace, 103 Mass. 50. Contra, S. v. "Gaunt V. S., 50 N. J. L. 490, 14 Bowles, 7 Jones (N. C.) 579; Fault Atl. 600, 8 Am. C. R. 300; S. v. v. S., 52 Ala. 427. Smith, 54 Iowa 104, 6 N. W. 153, 37 526 HUGHES* CRIMINAL LAW. § 2045 § 2045. Mulatto child born. — It is competent to show in evidence that a mulatto child, could not, by the course of nature, be born from sexual intercourse between a white man and a white woman.®^ § 2046. Chastity of woman : also of defendant. — On a charge of bastardy the testimony of the complaining witness can not be im- peached by showing her bad reputation for chastity.'^ Evidence that the prosecuting witness was in the habit of associating with persons whose chastity was bad is not competent.^^ The good reputation of the defendant for chastity is not competent.^* § 2047. Death of mother — Her evidence. — In the event of the death of the mother of the child during the pendency of the proceed- ings, her examination taken in writing before the Justice of the peace on the preliminary hearing may be read in evidence at the trial.°' § 2048. Statements by mother at travail. — Statements made by the mother of the child at the time of her travail are not competent to prove the charge of bastardy.^* But by statutory provisions such statements become competent as a condition precedent to recovery.'' § 2049. Proving "unmarried." — The fact that the accused "kept company" with the prosecuting witness warrants the inference that she was an unmarried woman, without further proof, where the fact »' Bullock V. Knox, 96 Ala. 195, 11 63 N. "W. 382; Low v. Mitchell, 18 So. 339; Watklns v. Carlton, 10 Me. 372; Houser v. S., 93 Ind. 228. Leigh (Va.) 560. See Com. v. '"Broyles v. S., 47 Ind. 251; Dodge Whistelo, 3 Wheeler Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) County v. Kemnitz, 28 Neb. 224, 44 194. N. W. 184, 38 Neb. 554, 57 N. W. "^Bookhout V. S., 66 Wis. 415, 28 385; Hicks v. S., 83 Ind. 483; P. v. N. W. 179; Com. v. Moore, 20 Mass. Schildwachter, 87 Hun 363, 34 N. Y. 194; Davison v. Cruse, 47 Neb. 829, Supp. 352. 66 N. W. 823; Rawles v. S., 56 Ind. " S. v. Tipton, 15 Mont. 74, 38 Pac. 433; Swisher v. Malone, 31 W. Va. 222; Richmond v. S., 19 Wis. 326. 442, 7 S. E. 439; Paull v. Padelford, Contra, Hawes v. Gustin, 84 Mass. 82 Mass. 263; Duffies v. S., 7 Wis. 402; Savage v. Reardon, 77 Mass. 672; Morse v. Pineo, 4 Vt. 281; Un- 376. derhill Cr. Ev., § 531. Contra, Short " Tacey v. Noyes, 143 Mass. 449, V. S., 4 Har. (Del.) 568; Sword v. 9 N. E. 830; Leonard v. Bolton, 148 Nestor, 33 Ky. 453. Mass. 66, 18 N. E. 879; Mann v. Max- " Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. well, 83 Me. 146, 21 Atl. 844; Harty 392; Eddy v. Gray, 86 Mass. 435. v. Malloy. 67 Conn. 339, 35 Atl. 259; See S. V. Seevers, 108 Iowa 738, 78 Scott v. Donovan, 153 Mass. 378, 26 N. W. 705. N. E. 871; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 533. " Stoppert V. Nierle, 45 Neb. 105, § 2050 BASTARDY. 527 is not disputed on the trial.'* Or that she was engaged to marry the defendant and that she was unmarried at the time of the trial. ^* § 2050. Proving date of conception. — The prosecution is not re- quired to prove the exact day on which the woman became pregnant. "" The precise date of the sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy need not be proved as alleged in the complaint or indictment. If the sexual intercourse occurred any time within the period of proper gestation it is sufficient."^ § 2051. Gestation not usual time. — A verdict will be sustained though the period of gestation was not the usual length of time ac- cording to the due course of nature.**^ § 2052. Offer to compromise. — The fact that the party accused of- fered to compromise the suit, without any admission of the truth of the charge, is not competent against him."' § 2053. Prosecutrix wife of defendant. — The defendant has a right, in defense to a charge of bastardy, to prove that the prosecutrix is his wife, and in such case direct proof of marriage is not required.®* § 2054. Mother as a witness. — In some jurisdictions the mother of the child is not a competent witness unless she accused the de- fendant with being the father, in the time of her travail. "° °» Durham v. P., 49 111. 233; Cook vlctlons: Rinehart v. S., 23 Ind. App. V. P., 51 111. 146. See Johnson v. S., 419, 55 N. B. 504; Altschuler v. Al- 55 Neb. 781, 76 N. "W. 427. gaza, 16 Neb. 631, 21 N. W. 401; " La Plant v. P., 60 111. App. 340. Conklln v. Niles, 62 Vt. 104, 18 Atl. «°S. V. Ryan, 78 Minn. 218, 80 N. 1043; Dukehart v. Coughman, 36 ■W. 962. Neb. 412, 54 N. W. 680; West v. S., "Ross V. P., 34 111. App. 21; Neft 84 Ga. 527, 10 S. B. 731; Denham v. V. S., 57 Md. 385; Francis v. Rosa, Watson, 24 Neb. 779, 40 N. W. 308; 151 Mass. 532, 24 N. B. 1024; Seals P. v. Tripicersky, 38 N. Y. Supp. 696, V. Furbish, 39 Me. 469; Bassett v. 4 App. Div. 613; Planck v. Bishop, Abbott, 70 Mass. 69; Holbrook v. 26 Neb. 589, 42 N. W. 723; Davis v. Knight, 67 Me. 244; Spivey v. S., 8 P., 50 111. 200; S. v. Seevers, 108 Ind. 405; P. v. Keefer, 103 Mich. 83, Iowa 738, 78 N. W. 705. But not 61 N. W. 338; Holcomb v. P., 79 111. sufficient in the following: McCoy 415. V. P., 65 111. 440; Baker v. S., 47 Wis. »"Cook V. P., 51 111. 143; Com. v. Ill, 2 N. W. 110; Mascal v. P., 55 Hoover, 3 Clark (Pa.) 514, 6 Pa. L. 111. Apn. 482; Keen v. Mallett, 68 J. 195; Hull V. S., 93 Ind. 128. Iowa 205, 26 N. W. 74; Burke v. "'Martin v. S., 62 Ala. 119; Olson Burpo, 75 Hun 568, 27 N. Y. Supp. V. Peterson, 33 Neb. 358, 50 N. W. 684; Whitman v. S., 34 Ind. 360; 155. Spurgeon v. Clemmons, 6 Neb. 307; *" S. v. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528. Jones v. P., 53 111. 366. The evidence in the following cases "'Beals v. Furbish, 39 Me. 469; was held sufficient to sustain con- Com. v. Cole, 5 Mass. 518; Bailey 528 hughes' criminal law. § 2055 § 2055. Testimony of mother uncorroborated. — The uncorrobor rated testimony of the mother of the child may be sufficient to sustain a conviction where contradicted by the defendant only."" But where the evidence shows that complainant had sexual intercourse with other men about the time of the alleged intercourse with the defendant, her testimony is not entitled to any credit.*^ § 2056. Witnesses — Husband and wife incompetent. — "Neither husband nor wife can testify to the fact of non-access during coverture to rebut the presumption of legitimacy in an action brought by a mar- ried woman against one whom she claims is the father of her bastard child."«* § 2057. Preliminary — "No bar. — A proceeding for bastardy before a justice of the peace resulting in a discharge or acquittal, is not a bar to a subsequent prosecution on the same charge, such a proceeding not being a trial over which the justice has jurisdiction.** § 2058. Trial without a plea. — The fact that the defendant did not enter a plea before trial, is not error where it appears he was de- prived of no rights which he would have been entitled to had he en- tered a formal plea.''" V. Chesley, 64 Mass. 284. See Brad- Easley v. Com. (Pa.), 11 Atl. 220; iford V. Paul, 18 Me. 30. Travail Mink v. S., 60 Wis. 583, 19 N. W. commences when pains begin result- 445; Chamberlain v. P., 23 N. Y. ing in the birth of the child: Rod- 85; Cope v. Cope, 1 M. & R. 269. mon V. Reding, 18 N. H. 431; Long " S. v. Linton, 42 Minn. 32, 43 N, V. Dow, 17 N. H. 470. The putative "W. 571; Waterloo v. P., 170 111. 488, father is a competent witness in his 48 N. E. 1054; Barnes v. Ryan, 174 own behalf: Freeman v. P., 54 lU. Mass. 117, 54 N. E. 492; Hyden v. 162; P. V. Starr, 50 111. 52. S., 40 Ga. 476; Munro v. Callahan. "McElhaney v. P., 1 111. App. 550; 41 Neb. 849, 60 N. W. 97; Nicholson S. V. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357, 13 N. v. S., 72 Ala. 176; Marston v. Jen- W. 153; Miller v. S., 110 Ala. 69, 20 ness, 11 N. H. 156; In re Parker, 44 So. 392; Kremling v. • Lallman, 16 Kan. 279, 24 Pac. 338; Davis v. S., 6 Neb. 280, 20 N. W. 383; S. v. Wil- Blackf. (Ind.) 494; Lynn v. S., 84 liams, 109 N. C. 846, 13 S. E. 880; Md. 67, 35 Atl. 21. Contra. S. v. S. V. Ingram, 6 Tenn. 221; Underbill Braun, 31 Wis. 600; S. v. Long, 9 Cr. Ev., § 529; Com. v. Betz, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 488. See Britten v. S., Woodw. Dec. 210; Noonan v. Brogan, 54 Ind. 535. Where the second pro- 85 Mass. 481; Riggins v. P., 46 111. ceedlng was commenced by collu- App. 196; S. V. McGlothlen, 56 Iowa sion, see Ice v. S., 123 Ind. 590, 24 544, 9 N. W. 893. N. E. 682. "Com. V. McCarty, 2 Clark (Pa.) " S. v. Bunker, 7 S. D. 639, 65 N. 351, 4 Pa. L. J. 136. W. 33. See De Priest v. S., 68 Ind. ""Underbill Cr. Ev., § 527, citing 569. § 2059 BASTARDY. 529 § 2059. Imprisonment for debt. — A judgment rendered in a bas- tardy prcx;eeding against the defendant is not a debt within the mean- ing of a constitutional provision prohibiting imprisonment for debt." § 2060. Bond in event of conviction. — In a bastardy proeeeding> the statute requires a bond to be given in the event of conviction, v^hich means a sealed instrument, and if not under seal, it is not binding.''^ If the conditions of the bond be valid in part and void in part, the valid portion will be enforced if the same can be separated from the invalid part.''* § 2061. Giving bond confers jurisdiction. — When the bond entered into by the accused before a justice of the peace, for his appearance at the next term of the circuit court, recites that complaint was made and a warrant issued, such recitals are sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the case.^* And such bond will confer jurisdiction, though defective.'"' Article V. Appeal. § 2062. Appeal, when allowed. — Under the statute of Illinois an appeal lies from the county court to the circuit court in' a bastardy cause and a trial may be had in the circuit court de novo.'"' A bas- tardy proceeding can not be appealed from the appellate court to the supreme court, without a proper certificate permitting such appeal.''^ § 2063. Appeal — When not allowed. — A bastardy proceeding is a ease in which the finding of the facts by the appellate court affirming the judgment is conclusive upon the parties in the supreme court.'' But otherwise the judgment of the appellate court in a bastardy pro- ceeding is not final in that court; an appeal may be taken to the su- preme court.'' " Ex parte Cottrell, 13 Neb. 193, " Walker v. S., 108 Ala. 56, 19 So. 13 N. W. 174; S. v. Brewer, 38 S. C. 353. 263, 16 S. E. 1001; Bookhout v. S., "Holcomb v. P., 79 111. 411; 66 Wis. 415, 28 N. W. 179. Rawlings v. P., 102 111. 477; Stanley "Chilton V. P., 66 111. 503, citing v. P., 84 111. 212; Hauskins v. P., 82 Holman v. Borough, 2 Salk. 658; 111. 195. See Peak v. P., 76 111. 292 Cooke V. Graham, 3 Cranch 229. (old law). "Erllnger v. P., 36 111. 461. Ac- " Scharf v. P., 134 111. 246, 24 N. tion on a forfeited bond, — see P. v. E. 761. Green, 58 IlL 236; Clark v. S., 125 "Moore v. P., 108 111. 484. Ind. 1, 24 N. E. 744. "Rawlings v. P., 102 111. 478; " Cook v. P., 51 111. 145. Moore v. P., 108 111. 484. hughes' c. l. — 34 CHAPTEE L. INCEST. Aet. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 2064-2069 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2070-2074 III. Indictment, §§ 2075-2084 I IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 2085-2097 Article I. Definition" and Elements. *§ 2064. Incest defined. — "Incest is defined as the carnal copulation of a man and woman related to each other in any of the degrees within which marriage is prohibited by law."^ § 2065. Single act sufficient. — A single aet of incestuous adultery or fornication is sufiBcient to constitute the offense between persons nearer of kin than cousins.^ § 2066. Consent material. — The crime of incest, as well as adul- tery, seduction and fornication, can only be committed with a female over the age of fourteen years, and with the consent of the parties to the act.* § 2067. Consent, when immaterial. — Under a statute providing that persons within certain degrees of relationship mentioned, who ''shall intermarry with each other, or who shall commit fornication or »2 McClaln Cr. L., § 1120; S. v. W. 841, 45 N. W. 816; S. v. Edlng, Herges, 55 Minn. 464, 57 N. W. 205; 141 Mo. 281, 42 S. W. 935; De Groat Com. V. Lane, 113 Mass. 458; S. v. v. P., 39 Mich. 124; P. v. Skutt, 96 Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E. Mich. 449, 56 N. W. 11; S. v. Jarvis, 747; Porath v. S., 90 Wis. 527, 63 20 Or. 437, 26 Pac. 302; P. v. Harri- N. W. 1061; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 395. den, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y,) 344; P. v. ' S. V. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 Burwell, 106 Mich. 27, 63 N. W. 986; 2J. B. 747; Mathis v. Com., 11 Ky. Yeoman v. S., 21 Neb. 171, 31 N. X,. 882, 13 S. W. 360; Underbill Cr. W. 669; P. v. Patterson, 102 Cal. lEv., § 396. 239, 36 Pac. 436. " S. V. Wentler, 76 Wis. 95, 44 N. (530) § 2068 INCEST. 531 adultery with each other, or who shall carnally know each other," shall be guilty of incest, the offense may 'be committed without the consent of both parties to the act.* § 2068. Half blood, and illegitimate. — One who commits fornica- tion with the daughter of his half brother, is guilty of incest under the statute prohibiting marriage between uncle and niece. ^ The blood relation of half-niece is included in the statute relating to in- cest of "brother or sister, whether of the whole or half blood, and also, between the uncle and niece, the aunt and the nephew."" Incest may be committed where the relationship is illegitimate as well as legitimate, as, by a father cohabiting with his illegitimate daughter.^ §2069. Daughter defined.— The word "daughter" within the meaning of the law relating to incest imports an immediate female descendant and does not include daughter-in-law, step-daughter, or adopted daughter.' Article II. Mattees of Defense. § 2070. Female consenting. — On a charge of incest, it is no de- fense that the female involved gave her consent to sexual intercourse with the defendant." § 2071. Chastity immaterial. — The bad reputation of the female for virtue and chastity is not material, and is therefore incompetent on a charge of incest ; and it is not competent as tending to impeach the character of the female for truth and veracity.^" § 2072. Defendant's reputation. — The defendant on a charge of in- cest is entitled to prove his reputation for gentlemanly deportment and moral character to be good, and is not confined to his reputation for virtue and chastity. ^^ *S. v. Nugent, 20 Wash. 522, 56 P. v. Lake, 110 N. Y. 61, 17 N. E. Pac. 25; S. v. Chambers, 87 Iowa 1, 146; Brown v. S. (Pla.), 27 So. 869. 53 N. W. 1090. ' P. V. Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, 51 " S. V. Reedy, 44 Kan. 190, 24 Pac. Pac. 702. 66. » Schoenfeldt v. S., 30 Tex. App. " S. V. Guiton, 51 La. 155, 24 So. 696, 18 S. W. 640. 784; Ter. v. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50; "KIdwell v. S., 63 Ind. 384, 3 Am. Shelly V. S., 95 Tenn. 152, 31 S. W. C. R. 237. 492; P. V. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305. " Poyner v. S. (Tex. Cr,), 48 S. W. 'Clark V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 179, 45 516. S. W. 576; Baker v. S., 30 Ala. 521; 532 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2073 § 2073. Not common law offense. — The offense of incest is not indictable at common law, and as there is no statute in North Carolina declaring it to be a criminal offense, an indictment can not there be maintained.^^ § 2074. Merely soliciting. — Mere solicitations do not prove the attempt to commit the crime of incest ; but there must be some phys- ical act done before the crime is complete.^^ Article III. Indictment. § 2075. Stating kinship. — An indictment charging that the de- fendant committed the crime of incest upon a person named, such person then and there being the daughter of him, the defendant, being in the language of the statute, sufficiently states the offense.^* § 2076. Indictment stating kinship. — ^An indictment charging by proper averments that the defendant was the father of a person named, and that he had carnal knowledge of such person, is sufficient, without further alleging that such person was a female or that she was the daughter of the defendant.^ ^ Alleging the kinship of the parties to the incestuous act to be that of uncle and niece, is sufficient under a statute prohibiting sexual intercourse between persons "nearer of kin than cousins.'"' § 2077. Knowledge immaterial. — Where knowledge as to relation- ship of the parties is not made an element of the crime of incest by statutory definition, it need not be alleged in the indictment. ^^ § 2078. Alleging "carnal knowledge." — ^An indictment which charges by proper averment that the defendant had carnal knowledge of his daughter, sufficiently states the offense, though the statutory " S. v. Keesler, 78 N. C. 469, 2 " Waggoner v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 199, Am. C. R. 331; UnderMll Cr. Ev., 32 S. W. 896. See Hicks v. P., 10 § 395. Mich. 395; Hintz v. S., 58 Wis. 493, "Cox V. P., 82 111. 191, 193; S. v. 17 N. W. 639. Butler, 8 Wash. 194, 35 Pac. 1093, 9 " S. v. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 Am. C. R. 662; Smith v. Com., 54 N. E. 747. Pa. St. 209, 93 Am. D. 690; 1 Mc- "Simon v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 186, 20 Clain Cr. L., § 220. See "Indict- S. W. 399, 716; S. v. Bulllnger, 54 ments." Mo. 142, 2 Green C. R. 601; Baker "Bergen v. P., 17 111. 426; Bolen v. S., 30 Ala. 521; Bergen v. P., 17 T. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. E. 408. 111. 426; Hicks v. P., 10 Mich. 395. § 2079 INCEST. 533 •words, "carnal knowledge of each other," are not set out in the in- dictment.^* § 2079. 'Teloniously" is essential. — By statutory definition incest; is made a felony ; an indictment, therefore, must charge that the par- ties committed the incestuous act feloniously, otherwise it is bad.^® § 2080. Name immaterial. — On a charge of incest committed by the father with his daughter, it makes no difference by what name the daughter was or is called if she was in fact his daughter.^" An in- dictment charging the defendant with committing incest with the daughter of his brother, is not defective in not stating the name of such brother.^^ §2081. Attempt, intent implied. — The indictment need not allege in direct terms an intent of the parties to commit incest, in charging an attempt to commit the offense, the intent being implied in an at- tempt to commit the offense.^^ § 2082. Counts in rape joined. — Counts for rape and for incest may be joined in the same indictment if founded on the same trans- action.^' § 2083. One indictable alone. — Conceding that the consent of both parties to the sexual intercourse is necessary to constitute the crime of incest, still one of them may be indicted alone and tried.^* § 2084. Joint indictment required. — A part of the statute of In- diana relating to incest is as follows: "If any step-mother and her step-son shall have sexual intercourse together having knowledge of their relationship, they shall be deemed guilty of incest." An in- dictment under this statute which charges that the defendant "did unlawfully have sexual intercourse with his step-mother, Augusta =' S. V. Hurd, 101 Iowa 391, 70 N. " S. v. McGilvery, 20 Wash. 240, "W. 613. See Hicks v. P., 10 Mich. 55 Pac. 115. 395. =^Porath v. S., 90 Wis. 534, 63 •'Newman v. S., 69 Miss. 393, 10 N. W. 1061; S. v. Leicham, 41 Wis. So. 580. 574. ""Mathis v. Com., 11 Ky. L. 882, ="P. v. Patterson, 102 Cal. 241, 36 13 S. W. 360. Pac. 436; Lowther v. S., 4 Ohio C. "S. V. Pennington, 41 W. Va. 599, C. 522; Powers v. S., 44 Ga. 209; 23 S. E. 918. Yeoman v. S., 21 Neb. 171, 31 N. W. 669. 534 hughes' criminal law. § 2085 Baumer, theB and there being his step-mother," is defective; where the crime is joint both must be guilty or neither.^" Article IV. Evidence ; Variance. i i § 2085. Proving relationship by reputation and admissions. — The better doctrine now is that on an indictment for incest, the relation- ship and pedigree of the parties may be proved by reputation."" On a charge of incest (the father with his daughter), the relationship of the parties to the offense may be proved by the admissions of the de- fendant, though, considering the nature of the case, such evidence should be acted upon with great caution."^ § 2086. Proving consent. — That the female gave her consent to the act of sexual intercourse may be shown by circumstances although she may deny the act.^* § 2087. Other acts of parties. — ^It is well settled that in cases where incest or adultery is charged, prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties may be proved."" Acts of illicit intercourse which are barred by the statute of limitations are competent, not to prove thp. act charged in the indictment, but as tending to prove a continuation of the conduct of the parties within the statute of limitations.^" § 2088. Illicit relations with others. — It is no defense to a charge of incest that the female had illicit relations with other men prior to the time she became pregnant.'^ ^Baumer v. S., 49 Ind. 544, 1 Am. Pac. 436; Thayer v. Thayer, 101 C. R. 356, 19 Am. R. 691; Delany Mass. Ill; Lefforge v. S., 129 Ind» V. P., 10 Mich. 241; Noble v. S., 22 551, 29 N. E. 34; P. v. Jenness, 5 Ohio St. 541; S. v. Byron, 20 Mo. Mich. 305; S. v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 210; Bish. Stat. Cr., §§ 702, 721, 646; S. v. Markins, 95 Ind. 464, 4S 731. Am. R. 733; S. v. Bridgman, 49 Vt ^»S. v. Bullinger, 54 Mo. 142, 2 202; Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. St. 405, 31 Green C. R. 601; Bergen v. P., 17 111. Atl. 123; P. v. Cease, 80 Mich. 576, 426; Bwell v. S., 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 45 N. W. 585; P. v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 364; Bish. Stat. Cr., § 735; Under- 449, 56 N. W. 11; Underbill Cr. Bv., hill Cr. Ev., § 397. § 396. ^Morgan v. S., 11 Ala. 289; P. v. "^ Taylor v. S., 110 Ga. 150, 35 S. Harriden, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 344. B. 161. =»S. V. McGilvery, 20 Wash. 240. "Kilpatrick v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 10, 55 Pac. 115. 44 S. W. 830; S. v. Winningham, "' P. V. Patterson, 102 Cal. 244, 36 124 Mo. 423, 27 S. W. 1107. § 2a89 INGEST. 535 §2089. Defendant's cruelty. — Evidence that the defendant, the father of the female, treated her cruelly to compel her tc submit to sexual intercourse with him, is competent.'^ § 2090. Daughter of defendant a prostitute. — Evidence that the daughter of the defendant, some time before the acts of incest charged in the indictment, was living as a prostitute with her mother in a house of ill-fame and giving her earnings to her father, is incompe- tent and prejudicial against the defendant on a charge of incest with his daughter.^' § 2091. Family quarrels incompetent. — Evidence that some years before the charge of incest, the defendant had quarreled with his sons and caused them to leave home, is incompetent.^* § 2092. Hearsay — Third persons.^On a charge of incest by a brother with his half sister, evidence that their father became angry and told them they must stop staying out late, was incompetent and hearsay. '° § 2093. Female declarations. — Any thing the female may have said about having had sexual intercourse with the defendant very soon after the act charged, is incompetent on a charge of incest.'* § 2094. Female corroborated. — Evidence that the female was preg- nant and that her brother, the defendant, was the only person hav- ing opportunity to have sexual intercourse with her, is suflBcient cor- roboration of her testimony, when corroboration is required.*^ §2095. Variance — ^Rape or incest. — Though the evidence may show that the act of sexual intercourse was accomplished by the de- "" Clements v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 616, 40 S. W. 498; Bales v. S. (Tex. Cr.). 31 S. W. 642. 44 S. W. 517; Coburn v. S., 36 Tex. "•P. v. Benoit, 97 Cal. 249, 31 Pac. Cr. 257, 36 S. W. 442; S. v. Miller. 1128. 65 Iowa 60, 21 N. W. 181; S. v. Dana, "S. V. Moore, 81 Iowa 578, 47 N. 59 Vt. 614, 10 Atl. 727; S. v. Jarvis, "W. 772. 18 Or. 360, 23 Pac. 251. See Under- "S. V. Pruett, 144 Mo. 92, 45 S. hill Cr. Bv., § 397. Evidence suffl- W. 1114. cient: S. v. Eding, 141 Mo. 281, 42 "Clark V. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 179, 45 S. W. 935; S. v. Klmes, 149 Mo. 459, S. W. 576. 51 S. W. 104; S. v. Kouhns, 103 Iowa "Jackson v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 612, 720, 73 N. W. 353. 536 hughes' criminal law? § 2096 fendant forcibly and without the consent of the female, it is no de- fense to a charge of incest, under the statute.^' § 2096. Adultery or fornication. — Under a statute against incest- uous adultery or fornication, a married man may be convicted, though the indictment charges him with incestuous fornication and not adultery.'" § 2097. Wife competent witness. — On a charge of incest against a married man, his wife is a competent witness against him, his in- cestuous act being an ofEense against her.^" ^ Smith V. S., 108 Ala. 1, 19 So. S. v. Eding, 141 Mo. 281, 42 S. W. 306; P. V. Gleason, 99 Cal. 359, 33 935. Pac. 1111; P. V. Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, ==P. v. Cease, 80 Mich. 576, 45 N. 51 Pac. 702; S. v. Hurd, 101 Iowa W. 585. Contra, Martin v. S., 58 391, 70 N. W. 613; Porath v. S., 90 Ark. 3, 22 S. W. 840. Wis. 527, 63 N. W. 1061. Contra, "S. v. Chambers, 87 Iowa 1, 53 S. V. Jarvis, 20 Or. 437, 26 Pac. 302; N. W. 1090. CHAPTER LI. HOUSE OP ILL FAME. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 3098-3103 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2104-3106 III. Indictment, §§ 3107-2110 IV. Evidence, §§ 2111-3118 Article I. Dbfinition and Elements. § 2098. House of ill fame defined. — A house of ill fame is a house which is kept for the convenience of persons desiring unlawful sexual intercourse and in which such intercourse is practiced.^ At common law and in common parlance, the words "house of ill fame" mean a house resorted to for the purpose of prostitution. The words "ill fame" are used in the statute to give name and character to the house and do not refer to its reputation. The gist of the offense is the keeping of the house irrespective of its fame. The statute aims at the fact and not the fame, to the substance and not the shadow.* § 2099. Owner of house liable. — If the owner of a house leases it to another for the purpose of keeping a bawdy house or for any other unlawful purpose, or if he leases it with knowledge that it is to be kept or occupied for such purpose, he is guilty under the common law and under the statutes in some states.^ ' P. V. Hampton, 4 Utah 258, 9 Pac. R. I. 24, 22 Atl. 1119; Crofton v. S., 508. 25 Ohio St. 249; Stevens v. P., 67 'S. V. Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. 111. 587; S. v. Williams, 30 N. J. L. 237, 10 Am. C. R. 274. 104; P. v. Saunders, 29 Mich. 269; 'Com. V. Harrington, 3 Picfe. Cahn v. S., 110 Ala. 56, 20 So. 380 r (Mass.) 26; McAlister v. Clark, 33 Campbell v. S., 55 Ala. 89; Albert- Conn. 91; Troutman v. S., 49 N. J. son v. S., 5 Tex. App. 89; Smith v. L. 33, 6 Atl. 618; S. v. Smith, 15 S., 6 Gill (Md.) 425; S. v. Lewis, 5 (537) 538 hughes' criminal law. § 2100 § 2100. Letting rooms to lodgers. — One who lets rooms to prosti- tutes for the purpose of prostitution, or knowingly permits them to be used for that purpose, is guilty of keeping a house of ill fame, and it is no defense that the occupants of such rooms are merely lodgers.* § 2101. Boat or tent is "house." — The statute punishing the keep- ing of houses of ill fame will include a flat-boat with a cabin on it where persons live and sleep." § 2102. Eeputation of house immaterial. — The statute makes it a criminal offense to keep a house for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness. That the house had the reputation of being a house of ill fame, is Hot essential.® The gist of the offense consists in keeping the house for the lewd and unchaste purposes, and not in the reputation of the house ; nor is it necessary that the indecency or disorderly con- duct of the frequenters of the house be perceptible from the exterior of the house.^^ Nor is it essential that the neighborhood should be disturbed by the noise about the house so kepf § 2103. House is nuisance. — A bawdy house or house of ill fame, being a place where prostitutes are harbored and where persons meet for the purpose of prostitution, is a common nuisance, having a ten- dency t^ corrupt the morals of the community, as well as to cause breaches of the peace.* Mo. App. 465; S. v. Potter, 30 Iowa Com. v. Lavonsalr, 132 Mass. 1; P. 587. See also S. v. Schaffer, 74 Iowa v. Pinkerton, 79 Mich. 110, 44 N. 704, 39 N. W. 89; Drake v. S., 14 W. 180. N«b. 536, 17 N. W. 117; Padgett v. "Toney v. S., 60 Ala. 97: Sparks S'., 68 Ind. 46; DeForest v. U. S., 11 v. S., 59 Ala. 83; P. v. Sadler, 97 N. Aiii: D. C. 458. When liable: Ter. Y. 146; Barnesciotta v. P., 10 Hun V. Stone, 2 Dak. 155, 4 N. W. 697. (N. Y.) 137, 69 N. Y. 612; Com. v. But see S. v. Wheatley, 4 Lea Goodall, 165 Mass. 588. 43 N. E. 520; (Tenn.) 230. Henson v. S., 62 Md. 231, 50 Am. R. 'S. V. Smith, 15 R. I. 24, 22 Atl. 204; S. v. Porter, 38 Ark. 637; S. v. 1119. Boardman, 64 Me. 523; Handy v. S., »S. V. Mullen, 35 Iowa 207. 63 Miss. 207, 56 Am. R. 803; S. v. »S. V. Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; Betts v. S., 237, 10 Am. C. R. 274; S. v. Max- 93 Ind. 375; S. v. Evans, 5 Ired. (N. well, 33 Conn. 259; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa C.) 603; Harlow v. Com., 11 Bush 75, 45 N. W. 545; Henson v. S., 62 (Ky.) 610; Givens v. Van Studdi- Md. 231; S. v. Boardman, 64 Me. ford, 86 Mo. 149, 72 Mo. 129; Herz- 523. Inger v. S., 70 Md. 278, 17 Atl. 81; •aHerzinger v. S., 70 Md. 278, 17 S. v. Clark, 78 Iowa 492, 43 N. W. A-tl. 81. 273; S. v. Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. ' King v. P., 83 N. Y. 587. See 237, 48 Am. R. 821. § 2104 HOUSE OF ILIi FAME. 539 Article II. Matters op Defense. § 2104. One woman receiving men. — The residence of an unchaste ■woman, a single prostitute, does not become a bawdy house because she may habitually admit one or many men to an illicit cohabitation with her. The house must be a common resort for the purposes of prostitution.® § 2105. Single act not sufficient. — Permitting a single act of illicit intercourse privately in one's house is not sufficient to sustain a charge of "keeping a house of ill fame."^" § 2106. "Profit" immaterial. — The prosecution is not required to allege or prove on a charge of keeping a house of ill fame, that the defendant kept it for profit unless "profit" be an element of the of- fense as defined by statute. ^^ Article III. Indictment. §2107. Statutory words sufficient. — ^Under a statute which pro- vides that "whoever keeps a house of ill fame, resorted to for the pur- pose of prostitution and lewdness, shall be fined," an indictment set- ting out the offense in the language of the statute, is sufficient, without any further description as to what is a house of ill fame.^^ § 2108. Intent immaterial. — Criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense of keeping a house of ill fame as defined by the statute of Massachusetts, and therefore need not be alleged in the indictment.^* •P. V. Buchanan, 1 Idaho 689; S. Iowa 492, 43 N. W. 273; Com. v. V. Galley, 104 N. C. 858, 17 Am. St. Lambert, 12 Allen (Mass.) 177. 704, 10 S. E. 455; Singleton v. Elli- "Com. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225; S. son, L. R. (1895) 1 Q. B. 607; S. v. Clark, 78 Iowa 492, 43 N. W. 273; V. Evans, 5 Ired. (N. C.) 607; S. v. S. v. Bailey, 21 N. H. 343; Sparks Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 20 Am. St. 401, 45 v. S., 59 Ala. 82; S. v. Homer, 40 N. "W. 545. Contra, P. v. Slater, 119 Me. 438; S. v. Nixon, 18 Vt.-70, 46 Cal. 620, 51 Pac. 957; S. v. Young, Am. D. 135; Scarborough v. S., 46 96 Iowa 262, 65 N. W. 160. See Ga. 26; P. v. Hampton, 4 Utah 258, Ramey v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 200, 45 S. 9 Pac. 508; Com. v. Ashley, 2 Gray W. 489. (Mass.) 356. "> P. V. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127, 42 N. '^Betts v. S., 93 Ind. 375; S. v. W. 937; S. V. Garing, 74 Me. 152; Osgood, 85 Me. 288, 27 Atl. 154; S. V. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 20 Am. R. Com. v. Edds, 14 Gray (Mass.) 406. 401, 45 N. W. 545; S. v. Clark, 78 '=Com. v. Shea, 150 Mass. 314, 23 N. B.* 47. 640 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2109 § 2109. Stating time and place. — A complaint which charges that the defendant on a day stated, "and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the making the complaint, at Boston, and within the judicial district of said court, did keep a certain house of ill fame there situate," sufficiently states the time and place of the commission of the offense charged.^* § 2110. Charging continuing offense.-rCharging in the indictment that the defendant on a certain day stated, "and on divers other days" between that day and a previous day stated, kept a house of ill fame, is proper pleading.^^ Article IV. Evidence. § 2111. Keeper of house. — In order to render a person guilty of keeping a house of ill fame, it must appear that he has some interest in it as such, or that he participates or is authorized to participate in some way in its management. Proof that he is the owner or lessor of the house and that he is frequently there and stays there some time during nights is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for "keeping a house of ill f ame."^° § 2112. Reputation of keeper and women. — The defendant can not be made liable as the keeper of a house of ill fame by evidence of com- mon reputation as to his character.^'' The character of the women frequenting the house and their conversations are competent evidence against the keeper of a house for keeping a house of ill fame.^* On a charge of keeping a house of ill fame, the general reputation of the inmates and frequenters of the house for chastity, including the keeper, is competent against the defendant. ^^^ It is proper to show "Com. V. Shea, 150 Mass. 314, 23 (Mass.) 328; S. v. Boardman, 64 N. E. 47. Me. 523; P. v. Hulett, 15 N. Y. Supp. '"P. V. Russell, 110 Mich. 46, 67 630; S. v. Bresland, 59 Minn. 281, N. W. 1099. 61 N. W. 450; Golden v. S., 34 Tex. "S. V. Pearsall, 43 Iowa 630, 2 Cr. 143, 29 S. W. 779; S. v. Plant, Am. C. R. 380; 2 McClaln Cr. L., 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. 237; P. v. Rus- § 1140. See S. v. Wells, 46 Iowa sell, 110 Mich. 46, 67 N. W. 1099; 662. S. V. Toombs, 79 Iowa 741, 45 N. " S. V. Hand, 7 Iowa 411; Burton W. 300. V. S., 16 Tex. App. 156. "a p. v. Russell, 110 Mich. 46, 67 "S. V. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407; N. W. 1099; McCain v. S., 57 Ga. Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 1044; 390; Golden v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 143, S. V. Schaffer, 74 Iowa 704, 39 N. 29 S. W. 779; Handy v. S., 63 Miss. W. 89; Com. v. Kimball, 7 Gray 207; Com. v. Clark, 145 Mass. 251, § 2113 HOUSE OF ILL FAME. 541 in evidence that the inmates of the house alleged to be a house of ill fame have the reputation of being common prostitutes.^*'* § 2113. Proving woman a prostitute. — That a woman is a prosti- tute may be shown by her conduct and manner of living : that she does no work, has no means, idles during the day time and dresses up in the evening and spends her time on the streets, and by fair speech solicits men to go to her room with her, may be shown in evidence to prove her to be a prostitute, though acts of sexual intercourse are not shown.^' § 2114. Lewd conduct and conversation. — On the trial of a person charged with keeping a house of ill fame, evidence of the lewd conduct . and conversations of the defendant in the presence of the inmates is competent.^" § 2115. Law as to other offenses. — Evidence of the unchaste char- acter of the defendant and that she had been charged with the unlaw- ful sale of intoxicating liquors, having been admitted, on her trial for keeping a house of ill fame, it is her right to have the jury instructed that it is for them to determine whether or not she is guilty of the ■offense charged, however guilty she may be of other offenses.^^ § 2116. Reputation of house immaterial. — The gist of the offense is the keeping of the house, irrespective of its fame. All of the cases hold that the character of the house can not be shown by proof of its reputation. °^ The prosecution is not required to show, on the trial, that the house had the reputation of being a bawdy house.^^ 13 N. E. 888; Toney v. S., 60 Ala. 193, 12 N. W. 524; Com. v. Dam, 107 97; Gamel v. S., 21 Tex. App. 357, Mass. 210. 17 S. W. 158; S. v. Hull, 18 R. I. ?'P. v. "Wells, 112 Mich. 648, 71 N. 207, 26 Atl. 191; Betts v. S., 93 Ind. W. 176. Compare Rhodes v. Com., 375; S. V. Hendricks, 15 Mont. 194, 21 Ky. L. 1076, 54 S. W. 184. 48 Am. St. 666, 39 Pac. 93; S. v. "^ S. v. Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. West, 46 La. 1009, 15 So. 418; Shaf- 237, 10 Am. C. R. 274, citing Hen- fer v. S., 87 Md. 124, 39 Atl. 313; son v. S., 62 Md. 231, 50 Am. R. 204; Whitlock v. S., 4 Ind. App. 432, 30 S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. "W. 545. N. B. 934. == S. V. Smith, 29 Minn. 193, 12 N. "bp. V. Russell, 110 Mich. 46, 67 W. 524; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 20 N. W. 1099. Am. R. 401, 45 N. W. 545; Herzinger "Peabody v. S., 72 Miss. 104, 17 v. S., 70 Md. 278, 17 Atl. 81; S. v. So. 213. Boardman, 64 Me. 523; S. v. Plant, ^"Sullivan v. S., 75 Wis. 650, 44 67 Vt. 454, 48 Am. R. 821, 32 Atl. N. W. 647; S. v. Smith, 29 Mini}. 237. Contra, Drake v. S., 14 Neb. 642 hughes' criminal law. § 2117 § 2117. Reputation of house — As to nuisance. — That the ill fame or bad reputation of a house may be shown in evidence on a charge of keeping and maintaining a nuisance by keeping a house of ill fame, as well as the bad reputation of the inmates and of persons who fre- quent the place, there seems to be no doubt.^* § 2118. Terms of lease competent. — On the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with leasing a house to be used for the purpose of prostitution, it is competent to prove the terms of the lease.^^ 535, 17 N. W. 117; P. v. Pinkerton, Com. v. Clark, 145 Mass. 251, 13 N. 79 Mich. 110, 44 N. W. 180. E. 888; Hogan v. S., 76 Ga. 82; S. "S. V. Hull, 18 R. I. 207, 26 Atl. v. Lyon, 39 Iowa 379; S. v. Board- 191, 10 Am. C. R. 429; S. v. Lee, man, 64 Me. 523; S. v. Bresland, 59 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. W. 545; Com. Minn. 281, 61 N. W. 450; Ter. v. V. Kimball, 7 Gray (Mass.) 328; Ter. Chartrand, 1 Dak. 379, 46 N. W. 583; V. Bowen, 2 Idaho 607, 23 Pac. 82; Gillett Indirect & Col. Bv., § 296. Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 1044; «P. v. Saunders, 29 Mich. 269. S. V. Mack, 41 La. 1079, 6 So. 808; CHAPTER LII. SEDXJCTIOHr. Art. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 3120-3128 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2129-2133 III. Indictment §§ 2134-2139 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 2140-2166 AeTICLE I. DEPHTITIOHr AND ELEMENTS. § 2120. What constitutes offense.-^IUieit connection, accomplished by means of a promise to marry, constitutes the ofEense of seduction, under the statute of Virginia.^ It is of the essence of the offense of seduction that the defendant should make a false or feigned promise of marriage to the woman seduced.^ It is not necessary that the promise of marriage should be a valid and binding one between the parties. The offense consists in seducing and having illicit connection with an unmarried female under promise of marriage.* § 2121. Previous promise to marry. — If before the time of the sexual intercourse the defendant had promised to marry the female, such promise need not be repeated at the time of the intercourse.* 'Barker v. Com., 90 Va. 820, 20 112, 1 Am. C. R. 660; Bowers v. S., S. E. 776, 9 Am. C. R. 615; S. v. 29 Ohio St. 542; O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. Heatherton, 60 Iowa 175, 14 N. W. 383, 11 S. B. 856; P. v. De Fore, 64 230; Boyce v. P., 55 N. Y. 644; P. Mich. 693, 31 N. W. 585; Grant v, V. Gibbs, 70 Mich. 425, 38 N. W. 257; P., 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 528. Jones V. S., 90 Ga. 616, 16 S. E. ' Callahan v. S., 63 Ind. 198, 3 Am. 380; P. V. De Fore, 64 Mich. 693, 31 C. R. 403, 30 Am. R. 211; Boyce v. N. W. 585. P., 55 N. Y. 644; Kenyon v. P., 26 " Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 N. Y. 203. See Barnes v. S., 37 Tex. So. 264, 18 So. 916, 9 Am. C. R. 607; Cr. 320, 39 S. W. 684. S. v. Fitzgerald, 63 Iowa 268, 19 N. * Bailey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 540, 38 W. 202; S. V. Patterson, 88 Mo. 88, S. W. 185. 57 Am. R. 374; P. v. Clark, 33 Mich. (543) 544 hughes' criminal law. § 2122: § 2122. Committed by deception. — The offense of seduction may be committed by means of temptation, deception, arts and acts of flattery as well as by promise of marriage.^ § 2123. Iliimarried female essential. — It is essential that the per- son seduced be an unmarried female of previous chaste character and that she consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant upon the sole consideration of his promise to marry her.* § 2124. Character of female essential.^In every prosecution for seduction the character of the female is involved in the issue, although the words "of previous chaste character" may not be embodied in the statutory definition of the offense.'' "The statute is for the protection of the pure in mind, for the innocent in heart. It is not every act of impropriety nor even of indecency that should affix the stain of un- chastity upon a female and deprive her of the protection of the law." The chastity or unchastity is a question of fact for the jury to deter- mine.* § 2125. "Illicit connection" means sexual intercourse. — "Illicit connection" and "sexual intercourse" are equivalent in meaning within the meaning of the law relating to seduction.' § 2126. Woman seduced after reforming. — ^If the woman had abandoned her former life and reformed after having been guilty of illicit intercourse with other men, the law will protect her and punish her seducer.^" 'Anderson v. S., 104 Ala. 83, 16 S. W. 764; S. v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608; So. 108; Smith v. S., 107 Ala. 139, Wilson v. S., 73 Ala. 533; 2 McClain 18 So. 306; Bracken v. S., Ill Ala. Cr. L., § 1113. See Mills v. Com., 93 68, 20 So. 636. See S. v. Cochran, 10 Va. 815, 22 S. E. 863. "Wash. 562, 39 Pac. 155. « Andre v. S., 5 Iowa 389, 68 Am. » P. v. Krusick, 93 Gal. 74, 28 Pac. D. 708; S. v. Carron, 18 Iowa 372, 87 794; S. V. Carr, 60 Iowa 453, 15 N. Am. D. 401. See Wilson v. S., 73 W. 271; S. V. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658, Ala. 527; O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. 383, 11 18 S. W. 924; S. v. Knutson, 91 Iowa S. E. 856. 549, 60 N. W. 129; S. v. Sharp, 132 ° S. v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. W. Mo. 165, 33 S. W. 795; S. v. Crowell, 1046. 116 N. C. 1052, 21 S. B. 502. «> S. v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 333; S. ' Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 So. v. Gunagy, 84 Iowa 177, 50 N. W. 264, 18 So. 916, 9 Am. C. R. 609; 882; Patterson v. Hayden, 17 Or. 238, Brock V. S., 95 Ga. 474, 20 S. E. 211; 21 Pac. 129, 11 Am. R. 822; S. v. P. V. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9; Polk v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 11 S. W. 732; S., 40 Ark. 482, 48 Am. R. 17; P. S. v. Knutson, 91 Iowa 549, 60 N. V. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, 1 Am. C. R. W. 129; S. v. Sharp, 132 Mo. 165, 664; Mrous v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 597, 21 33 S. W. 795; Kelly v. S., 33 Tex. § 2127 SEDUCTION. 545 § 2127. Virtuous woman. — An innocent and virtuous woman is one ■who has never had illicit intercourse with any man, and who is chaste and pure.^* §2128. remale confided to one's care. — Where a girl under eighteen years made arrangements with the defendant's wife to be- come a member of the family of the defendant, agreeing to work for' her support, she wa^ "confided to his care and protection" under the" statute, and he may be prosecuted for defiling her.^'' Article II. Matters op Defense. § 2129. Intercourse after seduction. — The fact that the female may have had sexual intercourse with other men after her seduction by the defendant, is no defense.^' § 2130. Being a minor is no defense. — The fact that the defendant was a minor is no defense to a charge of seduction.^* § 2131. Offer to marry. — Although by statute the marriage of the defendant to the female seduced is a bar to a prosecution for seduction, yet the offer to marry her is no defense. N"o matter what offers the defendant may have made after the act was committed, such offers can be no defense.^^ § 2132. Unchaste character of female. — ^When the evidence shows that the prosecuting witness was of bad repute for chastity at the time App. 31, 24 S. W. 295. See Foley v. 45 S. W. 15; Bracken v. S., Ill Ala., S., 59 N. J. L. 1, 35 Atl. 105. 68, 20 So. 636. See S. v. Abegglan, "S. V. Crowell, 116 N. C. 1052, 21 103 Iowa 50, 72 N. W. 305; P. v. S. E. 502; O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. 383, Wade, 118 Cal. 672, 50 Pac. 841. 11 S. E. 856. See Wood v. S., 48 "Kenyon v. P., 26 N. Y. 203; Polk Ga. 192, 15 Am. R. 664; Keller v. S., v. S., 40 Ark. 482, 48 Am. R. 17; P. 102 Ga. 506, 31 S. E. 92; P. v. Nelson, v. Kehoe, 123 Cal. 224, 55 Pac. 911; 153 N. Y. 90, 46 N. fi. 1040; Mills Harvey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. V. Com., 93 Va. 815, 22 S. E. 863; 102; S. v. McCIain, 137 Mo. 307, 38 Underhill Cr. Ev., § 392. S. W. 906. " S. V. Hill, 134 Mo. 663, 36 S. W. « S. v. Brandenberg, 118 Mo. 185. 223; S. v. Napper, 141 Mo. 401, 42 23 S. W. 1080; S. v. Mackey, 82 Iowa S. W. 957; S. v. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519, 393, 48 N. W. 918; P. v. Hough, 120 33 S. W. 167; S. v. Rogers, 108 Mo. Cal. 538, 52 Pac. 846. Contra, Com. 202, 18 S. W. 976; Underbill Cr. Ev., v. Wright, 16 Ky. L. 257, 27 S. W. . § 394. 815; S. v. Otis, 135 Ind. 267, 34 N„ "Anderson v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 83, B. 954; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 391. hughes' c. l.— 35 546 hughes' criminal law. § 2133 tDf the alleged seduction, the defendant may rely on this fact as a xiefense, although he knew of her unchaste reputation at the time he promised to marry her.^" § 2133. Female voluntarily submitting. — A female able to under- stand the nature of the offense, who voluntarily submits to sexual intercourse before the time of the alleged seduction, is not within the statute relating to seduction, although she was under the age of con- sent.^^ Article III. Indictment. §2134. Statutory words sufficient. — An indictment charging se- 'duction will be sufficient if it states the offense substantially in the language of the statute defining it.^^ The indictment charges that the defendant unlawfully and feloniously "did seduce, carnally know :and debauch one Laura E. Herring." Being in the words of the ■■statute, the indictment is suffieient.^^ In order to constitute the of- fense the intercourse must be "under promise of marriage." An in- dictment charging that the intercourse was had "by means of a prom- ise of marriage" is sufficient.^" § 2135. "Unmarried" not essential. — An indictment for seduction need not allege that the defendant, or the woman seduced, was un- married, unless "unmarried" be made material by statutory defini- tion." § 2136. Averment- of chaste character. — Charging in the indict- ment that the woman involved "was then and there an unmarried female of previous chaste character" sufficiently alleges that she was ihen and previous to that time of chaste character.^^ "Mrous V. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 597, 21 Am. R. 211, 3 Am. C. R. 400; Stlne- S. W. 764. house v. S., 47 Ind. 17; P. v. "P. V. Nelson, 153 N. Y. 90, 46 Higuera, 122 Cal. 466, 55 Pac. 252. N. B. 1040. But see S. v. Hamann, 109 Iowa 646, " S. V. Conkrlght, 58 Iowa 338, 12 80 N. W. 1064. N. W. 283; Wilson v. S., 73 Ala. 527; =' Davis v. Com., 98 Ky. 708, 17 Callahan v. S., 63 Ind. 198, 30 Am. Ky. L. 1265, 34 S. W. 699; Luckie R. 211, 3 Am. C. R. 400. See Wright v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 562, 28 S. W. 533; T. S., 62 Ark. 145, 34 S. W. 545. Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 So. " S. V. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 264, 18 So. 916. IST. W. 1006, 3 Am. C. R. 406; S. v. "S. v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. Abrisch, 41 Minn. 41, 42 N. W. 543; W. 933; West v. S., 1 Wis. 209. But rWilson v. S., 73 Ala. 527; S. v. see Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 129, 16 So. TVhalen, 98 Iowa 662, 68 N. W. 554. 264, 18 So. 916. » Callahan v. S., 63 Ind. 198, 30 2137 SEDUCTION. 547 § 2137, Exact time immaterial. — It is not necessary that the in- ietment should allege the exact date is not of the essence of the offense.^* dietment should allege the exact date or time of the seduction. Time § 2138. Indictment sufficient. — The indictment alleged that the de- fendant "did then and therej under and by promise of marriage made, unlawfully and feloniously seduce and debauch her, being then and there an unmarried female of good repute and under eighteen years of age." Held sufficient.''* § 2139. Indictment based on sufficient evidence. — An iadictment found on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness will, on proper showing, be quashed under a statute providing that no indictment shall be found on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman alleged to have been seduced.^* Aetiole IV. Evidence ; Variance. § 2140. Future promise of marriage. — If the girl submitted to the embraces of the defendant, relying on his promise to marry her when they got old enough, this is sufficient to sustain the charge of seduc- tion.^' The defendant, who was several years older than the girl of seventeen years, promised that if she would submit to his embraces, and if she became pregnant as a result, he would marry her: Held sufficient to warrant a conviction.^^ § 2141. Promise implied from language. — The promise of mar- riage, which induced the female to submit to sexual intercourse, may be implied from language used or inferred from circumstances, but can not be proved by evidence of mere attentions, or by a promise made after the seduction to marry her.^^ "S. v. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151, 51 38; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 386. Contra, Am. R. 234; S. v. Moore, 78 Iowa O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. 383, 11 S. E. 856. 494, 43 N. W. 273; Price v. S., 61 "S. v. Hughes, 106 Iowa 125, 76 N. J. L. 500, 39 Atl. 709; Carlisle v. N. W. 520. See Callahan v. S., 63 S., 73 Miss. 387, 19 So. 207. , Ind. 198, 30 Am. R. 211; P. v. Hustis, '* S. V. O'Keefe, 141 Mo. 271, 42 S. 32 Hun (N. Y.) 58, 2 N. Y. Cr. 448. "W. 725. See S. v. Regan, 18 Wash. Contra, Spenrath v. S. (Tex. Cy.), 43, 50 Pac. 582; S. v. Olson, 108 Iowa 48 S. W. 192; P. v. Van Alstyne, 144 667,-77 N. "W. 332 ("person"). N. Y. 361, 39 N. E. 343; P. v. Duryea, ''Hart V. S., 117 Ala. 183, 23 So. 43. 30 N. Y. Supp. 877, 81 Hun 390; S. " P. V. Kehoe, 123 Cal. 224, 55 Pac. v. Adams, 25 Or. 172, 35 Pac. 36. 911. See Armstrong v. P., 70 N. Y. "P. v. Kane, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 548 hughes' criminal law. § 2142 § 2142. IntercouTse before ^iromise. — The defendant may show that te had sexual intercourse with the female before the promise to marry her as tending to show that she did not rely upon a promise to marry.^' § 2143. Defendant's statements and correspondence.— The declara- tions of the defendant as to his relations with the female involved, as that he has had or intends to have sexual intercourse with her, are competent against him.** Letters written by the defendant to the prosecutrix several years before the date of the alleged seduction and his visits with her during the period of time are competent as tending to prove a promise of marriage.'^ § 2144. Female's statements fo others. — The fact that the prosecut- ing witness had previously told others that she was engaged to be married to the defendant is not competent on a charge of seduction.** § 2145. Specific acts of unchastity. — Evidence of specific acts of criminal intercourse by the prosecutrix with other persons than the accused is not competent to disprove the "good repute" of the prose- cutrix. The evidence in this regard must be confined to general repu- tation or character of the prosecutrix for unchastity, and the burden is on the state to prove her to be of "good repute."** In many of the states the statute instead of reading "of good repute" provides that the female shall be of "previous chaste character." Under such a statute the character of the prosecutrix may be impeached by proof of specific acts of lewdness, obscene talk, or immoral conduct previous to the seduction.** 15; Rice v. Com., 102 Pa. St. 408; S. 109 Cal. 611, 42 Pac. 159; Bowers v. V. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 285, 25 N. W. S., 29 Ohio St. 542, 2 Am. C. R. 593; 642; P. V. Clark, 33 Mich. 112. See S. v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423, 4 S. W. 121; Armstrong v. P., 70 N. Y. 38; S. v. S. v. Wheeler, 94 Mo. 252, 7 S. W. Bierce, 27 Conn. 319; Underhill Cr. 103; S. v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644, 16 Ev., § 387. S. W. 511; Zahrlskle v. S., 43 N. J. ="8. v. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151, 51 L. 640, 39 Am. R. 610; Oliver v. Am. R. 234; Bowers v. S., 29 Ohio St. Com., 101 Pa. St. 215, 47 Am. R. 704; 542; Ferguson v. S., 71 Miss. 805, 15 S. v. Atterbury, 59 Kan. 237, 52 Pac. So. 66; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 388. 451. =°S. v. Hughes, 106 Iowa 125, 76 "S. v. Bryan, 34 Kan. 63, 8 Pac. N. W. 520. 260, 7 Am. C. R. 604; P. v. Clark, 33 »'Webb V. S. (Miss.), 21 So. 133. Mich. 112, 1 Am. C. R. 660; S. v. == Harvey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. "W. demons, 78 Iowa 123, 42 N. W. 562; 102. Polk V. S., 40 Ark. 482, 48 Am. R. , "=S. V. Bryan, 34 Kan. 63, 8 Pac. 17; P. v. McArdle, 5 Park. Cr. (N. 260, 7 Am. C. R. 610; P. v. "Wallace, Y.) 180. See Keller v. S., 102 Ga. § 214.6 SEDUCTION. 549 § 2146. Reputation for chastity. — Evidence of reputation for chas- tity of the female involved is incompetent: She must possess actual personal virtue.^^ §2147. Chastity of female, when and when not presumed. — On the trial of one charged with seduction the chastity of the female is presumed and the burden is on the accused to impeach it.^" But in some jurisdictions it is held that the presumption in favor of the chas- tity of the female is overcome by the presumption of innocence of the defendant, and the burden rests upon the state to prove the aver- ipent.'' § 2148. Chaste character — Slight. — The evidence of previous chaste character of the female, though but slight and circumstantial, is sufBpient where the burden is on the state to prove the same.^' The prosecution is not bound to prove the chastity of the female to a moral certainty, under a statute providing that no conviction shall be had, "if on the trial it is proved that" the female was unchaste.^' § 2149. Chaste character prior to seduction. — That the woman may have had sexual intercourse after she was seduced by the de- fendant would not negative his guilt. Such evidence would not tend 506, 31 S. E. 92; Underbill Cr. Ev., Ala. 117, 24 So. 55; S. v. McClintlc, § 392. 73 Iowa 663, 35 N. W. 696; Slocum v. ^ S. V. Prizer, 49 Iowa 531, 31 Am. P., 90 111. 274, 281; Wilson v. S., 73 R. 155; Suther v. S., 118 Ala. 88, 24 Ala. 527; McTyier v. S., 91 Ga. 254, So. 43; Hussey v. S., 86 Ala. 34, 5 So. 18 S. E. 140; P. v. Squires, 49 Mich. 484; S. V. Summar, 143 Mo. 220, 45 487, 13 N. W. 828; Conkey v. P., 5 S. W. 254; S. v. Painter, 50 Iowa Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 31; Underhill Cr. 317; O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. 383, 11 S. E. Ev., §§ 19, 393. 856; Kenyon v. P., 26 N. Y. 203, 84 " S. v. Lockerby, 50 Minn. 363, 52 Am. D. 177; S. v. Reinheimer, 109 N. "W. 958. 9 Am. C. R. 618; S. v. Iowa 624, 80 N. W. 669; P. v. Brewer, Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. W. 933; 27 Mich. 134; S. v. Clark, 9 Or. 466. West v. S., 1 Wis. 209; Oliver v. See Smith v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 541, 32 Com., 101 Pa. St. 215, 218; Norton v. S. W. 137; S. V. Lockerhy, 50 Minn. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 So. 264, 18 So.- 363, 52 N. W. 958, 9 Am. C. R. 621. 916; Com. v. Whittaker, 131 Mass. ^S. v. Burns, 110 Iowa 745, 78 N. 224; S. v. Zabriskie, 43 N. J. L. 369; W. 681; Barker v. Com., 90 Va. 820, P. v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9; 1 Bish. 20 S. E. 776, 9 Am. C. R. 616; Flick v. Cr. Proc, § 1106; P. v. Wallace, 109 Com., 97 Va. 766, 34 S. E. 39; Mills Cal. 611, 42 Pac. 159; P. v. Squires, V. Com., 93 Va. 815, 22 S. B. 863; 49 Mich. 487, 13 N. W. 828. S. V. Bauerkemper, 95 Iowa 562, 64 ^ S. v. Lockerby, 50 Minn. 363, 52 N. W. 609; P. V. Clark, 33 Mich. 112; N. W. 958, 9 Am. C. R. 618, citing Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 So. P. v. Kearney, 110 N. Y. 193, 17 N. 264, 18 So. 916; Crozier v. P., 1 Park. E. 736. Cr. (N. Y.) 453; Polk v. S., 40 Ark. =» Suther v. S., 118 Ala. 88, 24 So. 482, 48 Am. R. 17; Smith v. S., 118 43. 550 hughes' criminal law, § 2150 to prove her unchaste at or previous to the time of seduction. Evi- dence as to the chaste character must be strictly confined to the time prior to the seduction.^" § 2150. Mere improprieties not sufficient. — ^Mere improprieties of the female before the alleged seduction, or sexual intercourse there- after, will not, without other evidence, prove unchaste character.*^ § 2151. Impeaching chastity — ^Lascivious conduct. — The conduct of the prosecuting witness, her lewd disposition or lascivious nature, and her relations with other men, such as kissing and embracing, may be shown in evidence as tending to impeach her chastity.*^ § 2152. Impeaching chastity by reputation of house. — The accused can not impeach the chastity of the female by showing that the house where she resided was of ill repute. The character of the house can not be shown by general reputation, but only by proof of particular facts.*' § 2153. Impeaching prosecutrix. — A female child having become pregnant, admitted that she had made written statements that the de- fendant was innocent of her condition, but stated that she made such statements because the defendant had threatened her. It was then proper for the defendant to show that she committed acts of sexual intercourse with other men, as tending to impeach her truth- fulness and as tending to show how she became pregnant.** § 2154. Questions indefinite. — On cross-examination questions were asked the prosecuting witness as to her having had sexual intercourse " S. V. Gunagy, 84 Iowa 183, 50 N. 31 S. E. 92. See also S. v. Shean, W. 882; Mann v. S., 34 Ga. 1; Lewis 32 Iowa 88; P. v. Squires, 49 Mich. V. P., 37 Mich. 518; S. v. Brassfield, 487, 13 N. W. 828; O'Neill v. S., 85 81 Mo. 151, 51 Am. R. 234; Boyce v. Ga. 383, 11 S. E. 856; S, v. Clemens, P., 55 N. Y. 644; S. v. Deltrick, 51 78 Iowa 123, 42 N. W. 562; S. v. Iowa 467, 1 N. W. 732; S. v. Gates, Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 11 S. W. 732; S. 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 404; Smith v. v. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 285, 25 N. W. S., 118 Ala. 117, 24 So. 55; S. v. 642. Abegglan, 103 Iowa 50, 72 N. W. 305; "Barker v. Com., 90 Va. 820, 20 Underbill Cr. Ev., § 392; P. v. Wade, S. E. 776, 9 Am. C. R. 614; Kenyon 118 Cal. 672, 50 Pac. 841; Bracken v. P., 26 N. Y. 203; Polk v. S., 40 Ark. V. S., Ill Ala. 68, 20 So. 636. Contra, 482; S. v. Bowman, 45 Iowa 418; Keller v. S., 102 Ga. 506, 31 S. E. 92. McTyier v. S., 91 Ga. 254, 18 S. B. " P. V. Kehoe, 123 Cal. 224, 55 Pac. 140; 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1113. 911. See S. v. Mclntlre, 89 Iowa "P. v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388, 74 139, 56 N. W. 419. N. W. 528. See S. v. Summar, 143 "Creighton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 Mo. 220, 45 S. W. 254. S. W. 910; Keller v. S., 102 Ga. 506, § 2155 SEDUCTION. 551 ■with other persons than the accused: Held improper hecause not confined to a time prior to the seduction charged. The questions asked were indefinite as to the time and required an answer of the witness after the alleged seduction as well as before.*^ § 2155. Chastity, when attacked, may be sustained by reputation. — The defendant having attacked the chastity of the prosecutrix by the introduction of testimony, the prosecution in reply may sustain her character by evidence of her general reputation in the community where she lives for chastity.** § 2156. Courtship or attention competent. — ^The authorities concur that seduction is generally shown by circumstances, such as courtship or continued attention for a length of time. Courtship afEords not simply the opportunity but the very means of persuasion by which seduction is effected.*^ § 2157. Previous familiarities. — Evidence of previous familiarities and propositions of affection and conversations about marriage, and correspondence, also, are competent on a charge of seduction.*' § 2158. Child as evidence. — A child born to the woman who was seduced may be introduced in evidence for the purpose of proving any likeness it bears to the defendant.*® § 2159. Other acts between the parties. — Evidence of other acts of sexual intercourse between the defendant and the female since the date of the seduction alleged is competent against him.^" «S. V. Deitrick, 51 Iowa 467, 1 N. W. 729; Ferguson v. S., 71 Miss. N. W. 732, 3 Am. C. R. 416; S. v. 805, 15 So. 66; S. v. Mackey, 82 Iowa Sutherland, 30 Iowa 570; Davis v. S., 393, 48 N. W. 918; Webb v. S. 36 Tex. Cr. 548, 38 S. W. 174. But (Miss.), 21 So. 133. See S. v. King, see Keller v. S., 102 Ga. 506, 31 S. E. 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. "W. 1046; Munkers 92; Foley v. S., 59 N. J. L. 1, 35 v. S., 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357; S. v. Hill, Atl. 105. 91 Mo. 423, 4 S. W. 121; Underbill " S. v. Reinheimer, 109 Iowa 624, Cr. Ev., § 388. 80 N. W. 669. *° S. V. Horton, 100 N. C. 443, 6 "S. V. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 S. E. 238; S. v. Smith, 54 Iowa 104, N. W. 1006, 3 Am. C. R. 410; S. v. 6 N. W. 153; S. v. Burns, 110 Iowa Wells, 48 Iowa 671; S. v. Wheeler, 745, 78 N. W. 681. Contra, S. v. 108 Mo. 659, 18 S. W. 924; Munkers Carter, 8 Wash. 272, 36 Pac. 29; V. S., 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357; Wright Barnes v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 320, 39 S. V. S., 31 Tex. App. 354, 20 S. W. 756; W. 684. See Robnett v. P., 16 IIU S. V. McClintic, 73 Iowa 663, 35 N. App. 299. W. 696. " S. V. Robertson, 121 N. C. 551, "P. V. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326, 52 28 S. E. 59; Keller v. S., 102 Ga. 506, 552 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. §2160 § 2160. Corroborating female by other evidence. — Where a stat- ute requires that the evidence of the woman shall be corroborated before a conviction can be had, the rule is that the corroboration need only extend to the promise to marry and to the sexual intercourse, and that the supporting evidence need be such only as the character of these matters admits of being furnished.^^ The testimony of the ■woman alleged to have been seduced may be corroborated by circum- stances, such as her association with the defendant, going to church or other places together, love letters passing between them, and the like.^^ Under a statute requiring corroboration of the prosecutrix on a charge of seduction such corroboration must be shown by other and different evidence than that given by the prosecuting witness.^* § 2161. Corroboration not sufficient. — Where the evidence showed that the defendant had an opportunity to have sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness at the time she said the offense was committed, and that about nine months afterward she gave birth to a child, and also showed that she had had intercourse with other persons, she was not corroborated as to the promise of marriage. Held not sufficient to warrant a conviction.^* 31 S. B. 92; Foley v. S., 59 N. J. L. 1, 35 Atl. 105; Barnes v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 320, 39 S. W. 684; S. v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. W. 1046; S. v. Whalen, 98 Iowa 662, 68 N. W. 554; Fergusen v. S., 71 Miss 805, 15 So. 66; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 388. =' Barker v. Com., 90 Va. 820, 20 S. E. 776, 9 Am. C. R. 617; P. v. Orr, 36 N. Y. Supp. 398, 92 Hun 199; Rice V. Com., 102 Pa. St. 408, 4 Am. C. R. 563; Suther v. S., 118 Ala. 88, 24 So. 43; S. v. Eisenhour, 132 Mo. 140, 33 S. W. 785; Ferguson v. S., 71 Miss. 805, 15 So. 66; P. v. Gumaer, 80 Hun 78, 30 N. Y. Supp. 17; Un- derbill Cr. Ev., § 390. See S. v. Lauderbeck, 96 Iowa 258, 65 N. W. 158; S. V. Knutson, 91 Iowa 549, 60 N. W. 129; S. V. Bauerkemper, 95 Iowa 562, 64 N. W. 609; S. v. Davis, 141 Mo. 522, 42 S. W. 1083; S. v. Mar- shall, 137 Mo. 463, 36 S. W. 619, 39 S. W. 63; S. V. Hughes, 106 Iowa 125, 76 N. W. 520; La Rosae v. S., 132 Ind. 219, 31 N. E. 798. Corrob- oration not required: S. v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. W. 1046. "^S. V. Lauderbeck, 96 Iowa 258, 65 N. W. 158; S. v. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151; Bailey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 540, 38 S. W. 185; S. v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423, 4 S. W. 121; S. v. Reinheimer, 109 Iowa 624, 80 N. W. 669; S. v. Brown, 64 N. J. L. 414, 45 Atl. 800. "^S. V. McGinn, 109 Iowa 641, 80 N. W. 1068; S. v. Bess, 109 Iowa 675, 81 N. W. 152. "Spenrath v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 192; S. V. Burns, 110 Iowa 745, 82 N. W. 325. See the following cases on corroboration of the female: S. V. Ferguson, 107 N. C. 841, 12 S. B. 574; Cunningham v. S., 73 Ala. 51; P. v. Kearny, 110 N. Y. 188, 17 N. B. 736; S. V. Hill, 91 Mo. 423, 4 S. W. 121; S. V. Reeves, 97 Mo. 668, 10 S. W. 841; Armstrong v. P., 70 N. Y. 38; S. V. Smith, 54 Iowa 743, 7 N. W. 402; S. V. Heatberton, 60 Iowa 175, 14 N. W. 230; S. v. Bell, 79 Iowa 117, 44 N. W. 244; S. v. demons, 78 Iowa 123, 42 N. W. 562; Cooper v. S., 90 Ala. 641, 8 So. 821; S. v. MeCaskey, 104 Mo. 644, 16 S. W. 511; Munkers V. S., 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357; S. v. Hayes, 105 Iowa 82, 74 N. W. 757; Zabriskie v. S., 43 N. J. L. 640, 39 § 2162 SEDUCTION. 553 § 2162. Promise of marriage relied on. — It nrnst appear from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecuting witness re- lied alone on the promise of marriage and that she was not actuated by some other consideration.^^ § 2163. Willingness to marry. — Although the willingness of the defendant to marry the prosecutrix is no defense, yet this fact may be shown in evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not she really was seduced, and also in mitigation of punishment.'"" § 2164. Preparation to marry incompetent. — Evidence that the prosecuting witness had procured a wedding dress and was making preparations to marry the defendant is not competent.^'^ § 2165. Defendant's moral character. — The court by refusing to allow evidence of good moral character, on the part of the defendant, in a case of seduction, but in allowing evidence of his character for virtue, committed no error.^^ § 2166. Variance — When rape. — Where violence is used to compel the female to submit to sexual intercourse the crime is not seduction, but rape.^° Am. R. 610; Rice v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 6 S. K 238; Croghan v. S., 22 Wis. 28; Anderson v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 83, 444; S. v. Lewis, 48 Iowa 578, 30 Am. 45 S. W. 15; P. V. Wade, 118 Cat. R. 407. See Nicholson v. Com., 91 672, 50 Pac. 841. Pa. St. 390; Wood v. S., 48 Ga. 192, "Barnes v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 320, 39 15 Am. R. 664; Hopper v. S., 54 Ga. S. W. 684; S. v. Sibley, 132 Mo. 102, 389. The evidence In the following 33 S. W. 167, 53 Am. R. 477; Mills cases was held sufficient to sustain V. Com., 93 Va. 815, 22 S. B. 863. convictions: Rippetoe v. P., 172 111. ''° S. V. Whalen, 98 Iowa 662, 68 173, 50 N. E. 166; S. v. Ayers, 8 S. D. N. W. 554; S. v. Bauerkemper, 95 517, 67 N. W. 611; S. v. Wallace, 109 Iowa 562, 64 N. W. 609; Underbill Cal. 611, 42 Pac. 159; S. v. Mclntire, Cr. Ev., §391. Oojitm, S. v. O'Keefe, 89 Iowa 139, 56 N. W. 419 (alibi); 141 Mo. 271, 42 S. W. 725; Smith v. Bailey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 540, 38 S. W. S., 107 Ala. 139, 18 So. 306. 185 (intercourse); Wright v. S., 31 "S. V. Lenihan, 88 Iowa 670, 56 Tex. Cr. 354, 20 S. W. 756; S. v. N. W. 292; S. v. Buxton, 89 Iowa Reed, 153 Mo. 451, 55 S. W. 74 (un- .573, 57 N. W. 417. See Underbill married); Flick v. Com., 97 Va. 766, Or. Ev., § 388. 34 S. E. 39; S. v. Hughes, 106 Iowa ""S. V. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 125, 76 N. W. 520 (corroboration). N. W. 1006, 3 Am. C. R. 408; 3 But not sufficient in the following: Greenl. Ev., § 25. See S. v. King, 9 S. v. Thomas, 103 Iowa 748, 73 N. W. S. D. 628, 70 N. W. 1046. 474; Spenrath v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 48 "P. V. Royal, 53 Cal. 62; S. v. S. W. 192. Horton, 100 N. C. 443, 6 Am. R. 613, CHAPTEE LIII. OBSCENE literatuee; indecency. Art. I. What Constitutes Offense, .....§§ 2167-2174 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2175-2180 III. Indictment, §§ 2181-2188 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 2189-2192 Article I. What Constitutes Offense. § 2167. Definition. — .The test of an obscene book is stated to be whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave or corrupt those v^hose minds are open to such immoral influences and who might come in contact with it. It would also be a proper test of obscenity in a painting or statue, whether the motive of the painting or statue, so to speak, as indicated by it, is pure or impure.^ A pict- ure which is so indecent that it can be described only by the use of obscene language is certainly an obscene picture.^ § 2168. Publication of obscene painting. — ^Although it is not stated in the indictment in express terms that the defendants published the painting, yet the averment is substantially the same, that is to say, that they exhibited it to sundry persons for money, for that in law is a publication.* § 2169. Publication — Delivery to one. — Taking the photograph of a nude woman and delivering it to her on receipt of the price is a violation of the statute prohibiting the sale of obscene photographs.* >P. V. MuUer, 96 N. Y. 408, 4 Am. (Pa.) 91, 101. See Reg. v. Carlile, C. R. 455. See Reg. v. Hicklin, L. R. 1 Cox C. C. 229; 2 McClain Cr. L., 3 Q. B. 369; U. S. v. Clarke, 38 Fed. § 1157. 500, 732. * S. V. Doty, 103 Iowa 699, 73 N. " S. V. Pfenninger, 76 Mo. App. 313. W. 352. "Com. V. Sharpless, 2 Serg. & R. (554) § 2170 OBSCENE LITERATURE ; INDECENCY. 555 But merely sitting for a negative of a nude picture is not a viola- tion.° § 2170. Exhibiting nude pictures. — Exhibiting a picture of a newly- married couple, showing the bride in the act of undressing, though without exposing much of her person, is, under the statute, an offense against public decency." § 2171. Indecent exhibition. — Where the evidence showed that the two prisoners kept a booth at Epsom Downs for the purpose of giv- ing an indecent exhibition; that they invited all persons who came within reach of their solicitations to come in and see it, and that per- sons paid and went in and saw what was grossly indecent, it was held sufficient to sustain a conviction.'' § 2172. Indecent exposure. — If a person expose his person on a public highway in view of persons passing on such highway, including females, he is guilty of indecent exposure at common law.^ § 2173. Obscenity — A question of fact. — Whether language charged to be obscene or insulting, or whether a publication, painting or pict- ure is obscene or not, is a question of fact for the jury to determine.' § 2174. Publishing scandals. — A newspaper publishing scandals, immoral conduct and intrigues, comes within the statute, though less than half its columns were devoted to that purpose.^" Article II. Matteks op Defense. § 2175. Obscene language — ^No defense. — On a charge of using ob- scene language in the presence or hearing of any female it is no de- fense that the defendant did not know or have any reason to believe that any female was present.^^ 'P. V. Ketchum, 103 Mich. 443, 61 Muller, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 209; U. S. v. N. W. 776. Davis, 38 Fed. 326; U. S. v. Clarke, ° P. V. Doris, 43 N. Y. Supp. 571, 38 Fed. 500. l^N. Y. Cr. 100. "In re Banks, 56 Kan. 242, 42 ' Queen v. Saunders, L. R. 1 Q. B. Pac. 693. See Com. v. Dowling, 14 D. 15, 3 Am. C. R. 440. Pa. Co. Ct. R. 607; P. v. Danihy, 63 °S. V. Walter, 2 Marv. (Del.) 444, Hun 579, 18 N. Y. Supp. 467; U. S. 43 Atl. 253. V. Harman, 38 Fed. 827. "McNair v. P., 89 III. 443; Carter " Laney v. S., 105 Ala. 105, 17 So. T. S^ 107 Ala. 146, 18 So. 232; P. v. 107. 556 hughes' criminal law. § 2176, § 2176. Language, when obscene. — It is "vulgar and obscene" for a man to ask a woman to go to bed with him. But saying to a woma^i, "I want to stay here a while," is not per se obscene.^^ § 2177. Defendant's opinion immaterial. — The inquiry under the statute is whether the paper charged to have been obscene, lewd and lascivious' was in fact of that character; and if it was so, and was de- posited in the mail by one who knew or had notice at the time of its contents, the offense is complete, although the defendant himself did not regard the paper as one which the statute forbade to be carried in the mails." § 2178. Sending through mail. — ^It is no defense to a charge of sending obscene, lewd or lascivious books, pictures and the like through the mail that the same were sent in the interest of science, philosophy or morality.^* § 2179. Procuring obscene picture. — On an information charging a woman with having procured a certain obscene picture of herself for the purpose of exhibition and circulation, evidence that she caused such picture to be taken will not sustain a conviction without evidence to show for what purpose she had the picture taken.^° § 2180. Indecent exposure seen by one. — Under a statute forbid- ding a "notorious act of public indecency," the committing of an act of indecent exposure in a iield near a public road, seen by one person only, is not an offense.'^* Article III. Indictment. § 2181. Setting out or describing obscenity, — An indictment for publishing a paper containing an obscene picture is defective in not setting out such paper in haec verha or giving a description of it.^^ In "^Dlllard v. S., 41 Ga. 278; Stamps ^»P. v. Ketchum, 103 Mich. 443, 61 V. S., 95 Ga. 475, 20 S. B. 241. N. W. 776. ^'' Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 29, 10 "Morris v. S., 109 Ga. 351, 34 S. B. Am. G. R. 262, 16 S. Ct. 434; Dunlop 577. V. U. S., 165 U. S. 486, 17 S. Ct. 375; "Reyes v. S., 34 Fla. 181, 15 So. Andrews v. U. S., 162 U. S. 420, 16 875. See Stevenson v. S., 90 Ga. 456, S. Ct. 798. See Swearingen v. U. S., 16 S. B. 95; S. v. Brown, 27 Vt. 619; 161 U. S. 446, 16 S. Ct. 562. Thomas v. S., 103 Ind. 419, 2 N. B. "U. S. V. Slenker, 32 Fed. 691; 808; McNair v. P., 89 111. 441; P. v. U. S. V. Smith, 45 Fed. 476. See U. Hallenbeck, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 502. S. V. Harmon, 45 Fed. 414. § 2182 OBSCENE LITERATURE ; INDECENCY. 557 an ifidictment for publishing an obscene book it is not sufficient to de- scribe the book by the title only ; the words contained in it alleged to be obscene must be set out.^' An indictment alleging that the defend- ant ^'sold an obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy and indecent newspaper. Containing stdries of an indecent and immoral character, having a ten- dency t6 degrade and corrupt the morals," is defective in not setting 6ut the contents of the paper to show that it was of that character.^* Under a statute providing that evdry person who shall distribute any pfinted paper or thing which contains obscene language, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth, shall be imprisoned, an indictment alleging that the defendant "unlawfully, knowingly and wickedly did distribute a certain printed paper containing obscene language," is defective in not stating the manner of the distribution.^" § 2182. dbscenity — ^Need not be alleged. — It is necessary ta set out the obscene publication in the indictment, unless it is in the hands of the defendant or out of the power of the prosecution, or the matter is to9 gross and obscene to be spread on the records of the court, either of which facts, if existing, should be averred in the indict- ment.^^ § 2183. Statutory words sufficient. — An indictment in charging in the language of the statute that the defendant unlawfully did sell, or have in his possession, a certain obscene and indecent picture, is suf- ficient.''^ § 2184. Averring obscenity. — In charging the ofEense of using ob- scene or licentious language in the presence or hearing of a female, if the words us6d are not per se of that character the indictment must by proper averments show wherein the words are obscene.^' While the indecent publication need not be set forth at length in the indict- ment, and that it is sufficient to allege as an excuse for not so doing, its scandalous and obscene character, it must be identified by some gen- "Bradlaugh v. Queen, L. R. 3 Q. P. v. Glrardin, 1 Mich. 90; Com. v. B. b. 607, 3 Am. C. R. 479. Contra, Holmes, 17 Mass. 336; Rosen v. U. S., Com. V. McCance, 164 Mass. 162, 41 161 U. S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 10 Am. C. N. E. 133. R. 256, 260. . "P. V. banihy, 63 Hun 579, 18 ""Act of 1889, 111. Stat; Strohm N. Y. Supp. 467. See Abendroth v. v. P., 160 111. 584, 43 N. E. 622; Ful- S., 34 Tex. Cr. 325, 30 S. W. 787. ler v. P., 92 111. 182; S. v. McKee, 73 " S. V. Smith, 17 R. I. 371, 22 Atl. Conn. 18, 46 Atl. 409, 49 L. R. A. 542. 282. ^s. V. Cone, 16 Ind. App. 350, 45 "•McNair v. P., 89 111. 443; S. v. N. E. 345. Smith, 17 R. I. 415, 22 Atl. 1020; 558 hughes' criminal law. § 2185 eral description which will show what the paper is which the defendant is. charged with publishing.^* § 2185. Indictment for depositing in mail, — ^An indictment charg- ing that the defendant "did unlawfully and knowingly deposit in the mail of the United States, then and there for mailing and delivery, a certain obscene, lewd and lascivious book (naming it), which said book is so lewd, obscene and lascivious that the same would be offensive to the court and improper to be placed upon the records thereof, wherefore the jurors aforesaid do not set forth the same in the indict- ment/' sufficiently states an offense.^' § 2186. Indictment as to knowledge. — An information charging that the defendant did "knowingly compose, edit, print and sell" a cer- tain obscene newspaper, is sufficient, without alleging that he knew the paper to be obscene.^* § 2187. Duplicity — ^Various ways. — Under a statute punishing any person who shall "import, print, publish, sell, rent, give away, distribute or show any obscene book, newspaper or photograph," an indictment alleging that the defendant "did compose, edit, print, sell and distribute a certain obscene newspaper," charges but a single of- fense.^' § 2188. Filing copy of obscene document. — Where the indictment alleges that the publication is too obscene and indecent to be set out in the record, then the court will exercise its discretion as to whether or not the prosecution shall be required to file a copy of the matter on which the prosecution is based.''* Article IV. Evidence ; Variance. § 2189. Other acts incompetent. — On a charge of sending an in- decent and offensive letter to a female, evidence of sending an inde- "Com. v. Wright, 139 Mass. 382, Pac. 652. See Rosen v. U. S., 161 1 N. B. 411, 5 Am. C. R. 572. U. S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434. Contra, U. S. "^^ Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 29, 16 v. Reld, 73 Fed. 289. S. Ct. 434, 10 Am. C. R. 260; S. v. " S. v. Holedger, 15 Wash. 443, 46 Smith, 17 R. I. 371, 22 Atl. 282. Pac. 652. Contra, U. S. v. Fuller, 72 Fed. 771. ^ Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 486, =« S. v. Holedger, 15 Wash. 443, 46 17 S. Ct. 375. § 2190 OBSCENE LITERATURE ; INDECENCY, 559 cent letter to another female' is not competent unless there be some connection between the two transactions.^' § 2190. DocTiment containing obscene matter. — The newspaper or printed document containing the alleged obscene matter may be ad- mitted in evidence. And it may also be shown that other copies of the same newspaper were mailed, though not shown to have been re- ceived.^" § 2191. Variance — Vulgar words. — A statute making it a misde- meanor to use "obscene and vulgar" language in the presence of a fe- male is not violated by using the following words : "You are a God damn, low down, son of a bitch," in the presence of a f emale.^^ § 2192. Variance — ^Nude pictures. — An indictment averred that the defendant unlawfully and scandalously did print and publish certain obscene pictures, figures and descriptions, to wit, pictures of two naked girls. The evidence was that the defendant took photograph pictures of girls naked down to the waist. Held to be a variance.^^ ■"Larlson v. S., 49 N. J. L. 256, 159 U. S. 663, 16 S. Ct. 136; Price v. 265, 9 Atl. 700; Montross v. S., 72 Ga. U. S., 165 U. S. 311, 17 S. Ct. 366. 261. Evidence obtained by means of '° Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 486, sending decoy letters is competent 17 S. Ct. 375. against the accused on a charge of " Shields v. S., 89 Ga. 549, 16 S. B. violating the mail law. U. S. v. 66. Slenker, 32 Fed. 691; Goode v. U. S., '"Com. v. Dejardln, 126 Mass. 46, 3 Am. C. R. 291. CHAPTEE UY. GAMING. iLET. I. Definition and Elements, §§ 2193-2219 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2220-2223 III. Indictment, §§ 2224-2240 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 2241-2254 Article I. Definition and Elements. § 2193. Gaming defined.-^Gaming is an unlawful agreement be- tween two or more persons to risk money or property on a contest or chance of any kind, where one must be gainer and the other loser.^ The controlling element in unlawful gaming is chance or hazard.^ § 2194. Gaming house. — A gaming house, within the meaning of the statute, will include a house where persons are permitted to habit- ually resort for the purpose of betting money on horse races and other games.' The keeping of "a common gaming house in any building" includes athletics or other games of muscular strength as well as games of hazard and skill played with instruments; also betting on horse races, bookmaking and pool-selling, contingent upon the result of horse races.* 'Bubanks v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) * Swlgart v. P., 154 111. 291, 40 N. 488, 1 Green C. R. 323; Portis v. S., E. 432; Shaffner v. Plnchback, 133 27 Ark. 360. See Montfort v. Com., 111. 412, 24 N. E. 867; Cheek v. Com., 13 Ky. L. 136. 100 Ky. 1, 18 Ky. L. 515, 37 S. W. nn re Lee Tong, 18 Fed. 253, 9 152; Talman v. Strader, 23 111. 440; Sawy. 333, 5 Cr. L. Mag. 67; Worth- Garrison v. McGregor, 51 111. 474; am V. S., 59 Miss. 179; Harris v. S. v. Falk, 66 Conn. 250, 33 Atl. 913; White, 81 N. Y. 539; S. v. Smith, McBride v. S., 39 Fla. 442, 22 So. Meigs (Tenn.) 99, 33 Am. D. 132. 711; Wilkiilson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. " Bollinger V. Com., 98 Ky. 574, 17 299; McLain v. Huffman, 30 Ark. Ky. L. 1122, 35 S. W. 553. See Com. 428. See also P. v. Weithoff, 51 V. Blankinshlp, 165 Mass. 40, 42 N. Mich. 203, 47 Am. R. 557, 16 N. W. B. 115. 442; Robb v. S., 52 Ind. 216; Benson (560) I § 2195 GAMING. 561 § 2195. Keeping gaming house — Continuing offense. — The "keep- ing of a gaming house" is a continuing ofEense, and though such "keeping" continues for a long space of time, it is but a single ofEense for that entire period of time." § 2196. Only one act. — Where a person keeps a gaming device and permits and entices persons to play on or with it, it is but one offense if done at the same time." § 2197. Several bets.— Each of several distinct bets on a gaming device is a separate offense though done at one and the same sitting. Betting on such device is not a continuing offense.'' § 2198. Bookmaking and pool-selling. — Under a statute relating to bookmaking and pool-selling containing a proviso that the pro- visions of the statute shall not apply to the actual enclosure of fair or race-track associations during the actual time of the meetings of such associations, such proviso does not suspend the operation of the gen- eral statute against gaming within the enclosure of such associations during the actual time of such meetings and affords no protection to such associations on charges of gaming for money.* § 2199. Betting outside inclosure. — Betting on a horse race outside of the inclosure where the race is run is a violation under a statute permitting such betting within the inclosure.* § 2200. Selling prize boxes. — The defendant was clerk for another, who was selling prize candy publicly, on the square, by auction. The candy was put up in small boxes about two inches wide and three inches long, made with a sliding drawer. Each box contained French candies worth ten cents and each box was sold for iifty cents. Some of the boxes, besides candy, had rings, some silver half dollars and watches and jewelry. It was guaranteed that each box contained V. Dyer, 69 Ga. 190; Redman v. S., v. S., 20 Ala. 30; Buck v. S., 1 Ohio 33 Alal 428; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 471. St. 51. ' S. V. Lindley, 14 Ind. 430. See S. * Swigart v. P., 154 111. 295, 40 N. V. Crogan, 8 Iowa 523; Com. v. E. 432; S. v. Dycer, 85 Md. 246, 36 Smith, 166 Mass. 370, 44 N. E. 503; Atl. 763. See Aicardi v. S., 19 Wall. Underbill Cr. Bv., § 475. (U. S.) 635, 2 Green C. R. 142. " S. V. Oswald, 59 Kan. 508, 53 Pac. ' Debardelaben v. S., 99 Tenn. 649, 525. 42 S. W. 684; Williams v. S., 92 ' Torney v. S., 13 Mo. 455; Swallow Tenn. 275, 21 S. W. 662. hughes' c. l.— 36 562 hughes' criminal law. § 2201 candy and something of value not known to either seller or pur- chaser. It was required that each box should be opened at the time and place of sale. Each box contained some article besides candy worth from ten cents to five dollars: Held to be promoting or en- couraging gaming.^" § 2201. Gaming table includes "craps." — A game of craps, where the exhibitor plays against all others interested in the game, receiving bets and paying losses out of money which he keeps on a table, is in- cluded in a statute against "keeping a ganging table."^" But craps is not a "banking game" within the meaning of the statute.^* § 2202. Keno is a game. — The game of keno comes within the stat- ute providing that "any person who keeps, exhibits or is interested in any table for gaming of whatever name, kind or description, with- >out a license, shall be fined."^* !|2203. Gaming with dice — Raffling. — ^Where persons throw dice lor money, the one throwing the highest number taking the money, it is gaming with dice ; it is not a raffle, though the mode of procedure iis the same as in rafBing.^'' Where each of several persons puts up money for the price of a turkey and throws dice to determine which shall have the turkey, it is gaming.^® § 2204. For checks and things of value. — Gaming for checks, notes or instruments, understood by the parties to represent value, and by virtue of which the winner can obtain value, is as much an offense as gaming for money.^^ ^"Eubanks v. S., 3 Heist. (Tenn.) ""Jones v. S., 26 Ala. 155; S. v. 488, 1 Green C. R. 323. De Boy, 117 N. C. 702, 23 S. B. 167. "Copeland v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 576, See 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1285. 38 S. W. 189; Bell v. S., 32 Tex. " S. v. De Boy, 117 N. C. 702, 23 Cr. 187, 22 S. W. 687; Harman v. S. S. E. 167. =Epps v. Smith, 121 N. C. 157, 28 Am. R. 808; Mason v. S., 55 Ark. S. B. 359. See Underhill Cr. Ev., 529, 18 S. W. 827 (destroying bal- § 455. lots). "S. V. Purdy, 36 Wis. 2l3; S. v. "S. V. Jackson, 73 Me. 91; S. v. Dustin, 5 Or. 375. Ames, 64 Me. 386. Treating voters " Com. v. Rudy, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 270; for the purpose of Influencing them S. v. Towns, 153 Mo. 91, 54 S. W. In casting their ballots at an elec- 552. tion is a criminal offense — It is "S. v. Collins, 1 Pen. (Del.) 420, bribery: S. v. Shaw, 8 Humph. 42 Atl. 619. 590 hughes' criminal law. § 231t statute, although such person afterwards returns and votes at the election.^^ § 2311. Voter not influenced. — It is not essential to a conviction for giving or offering to give "any money, property or other thing of ' value to any elector to influence his vote," that the gift actually influ- enced the elector's vote.^* § 2312. Gift for changing county seat. — Offering to give public buildings and grounds to induce the voters to vote at an election, to change the county seat from one place to another is not an attenipt to obtain votes by bribery.^® § 2313. Officer willfully refusing. — ^That the judge of an election did not consider the naturalization papers of a voter sufficiently regu- lar to entitle him to vote is no excuse on a charge of willfully refusing to accept the ballot of the voter, where such papers appear to be regular.^" § 2314. Officer refusing duty. — Where a public officer whose duty it is to appoint election officers from approved lists prepared and filed by any political party, as provided by law, refuses to make appoint- ments from such lists, and appoints others not members of the parly filing such lists, he is liable to prosecution for a failure to perform his duty.^^ § 2315. Officer permitting alteration. — ^An election inspector, who is entrusted with the custody of election documents, by carelessly permitting such documents to be altered by another, is guilty under a statute making it a criminal offense for an election inspector to per- mit any alteration of election documents in his custody.^^ § 2316. Stuffing ballot box. — Officers of an election by putting ballots into a ballot-box not cast by persons entitled to vote, and countr "Thompson v. S., 16 Ind. App. "S. v. Colton, 9 Houst. (Del.) 84, 44 N. E. 763. See S. v. Downs, 530, 33 Atl. 259. 148 Ind. 324, 47 N. E. 670. " P. v. Gleason, 42 N. Y. Supp. "S. V. Downs, 148 Ind. 324, 47 1084, 12 N. Y. Cr. 192. N. E. 670. =" S. V. Brand, 2 Marv. (Del.) 459. "Hall V. Marshall, 80 Ky. 552. 43 AU. 263. See S. V. Dustln, 5 Or. 375. § 2317 ELECTION LAWS 591 ing such spurious votes with intent to corruptly influence the result of the election, may be punished under a statute which provides : "If any two or more persons shall conspire to commit any act for the per- version or obstruction of Justice or the due administration of the laws they shall be guilty of conspiracy.""' Article II. Matters of Defense. § 2317. Officer's slight departure from duty. — ^A slight departure by officers conducting an election, from unimportant details which do not and can not defeat the object of the law, was not intended by the legislature to call for punishment."* But if an officer of an election willfully refuse or neglect to discharge his plain duty as such officer, as the refusal to tender to a challenged voter an oath as required by statute, he will be held liable."' § 2318. Officer's mistake, no offense. — Officers acting in good faith in the discharge of their duty in conducting an election will not be held criminally liable for mistake of judgment : as, if they err in theii: Judgment as to how a vote should be counted or in receiving an illegal ballot from one not having a right to vote."* § 2319. Minor voting. — That a minor on a charge of illegal voting was informed by his father that he was twenty-one years old, and he honestly beUeved such information, is a good defense."^ § 2320. Advice no defense. — It is no defense to a charge of voting illegally that the defendant had been advised by friends or counsel that there was no record of his conviction of a felony disfranchising him, or that he had forgotten such conviction."^ The statute makes it a criminal offense to "knowingly and fraudulently" register in two or more election districts. It is no defense to a charge of fraudu- '^'Moschell V. S., 53 N. J. L. 498, 12 Wis. 519; Matter of Hilt, 9 Abb. 22 Atl. 50. N. C. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 484; U. S. " S. V. Bush, 47 Kan. 202, 27 Pac. v. Dwyer, 56 Fed. 464. 834. " Gordon v. S., 52 Ala. 308; Carter "S. V. Clark, 102 Iowa 685, 72 v. S., 55 Ala. 181. N. W. 296; S. v. Tuibell, 26 Ind. ^Gandy v. S., 82 Ala. 61, 2 So. 264; U. S. V. Eagan, 30 Fed. 495; 465; Gandy v. S., 86 Ala. 20, 5 So. S. V. Bush, 45 Kan. 138, 25 Pac. 420; S. v. Sheeley, 15 Iowa 404; 614. Thompson v. S., 26 Tex. App. 94, " P. V. Sutherland, 41 N. Y. Supp. 9 S. W. 486. 181, 9 App. Div. 313; Byrne v. S., 592 hughes' criminal law. § 2321 lently registering in two districts that the defendant was informed he had a right to register in a certain district."' § 2321. Conviction of felony disqualifies. — One is not disqualified as a legal voter merely because he has been convicted of a felony; he is not "convicted" unless there is a judgment on the verdict. If judgment be suspended there is no "conviction."'" § 2322. Knowledge of law presumed. — On a charge of illegal vot- ing by a person not entitled' to vote because of his conviction of a felony, it is no defense that he did not know such conviction barred him from voting ; it must be conclusively presumed that he knew the legal consequences of such conviction. And the prosecution, there- fore, is not required to prove he had such knowledge.'^ § 2323. Intent — Drunkenness. — Under a statute providing that if "any person shall vote more than once at any election he shall be deemed guilty of a felony," the defendant may show he was so intoxi- cated at the time of committing the act that he was unable to form a criminal intent.'" § 2324. Legal election essential. — On a charge of bribery or other violation of the election laws it is not enough to show that an election de facto was held, and that the defendant bribed a voter as an elector on that occasion; it must further appear that the election was legal and valid."' But mere irregularities in calling or conducting an election which do not invalidate the election afford no protection for illegal voting or other offense in violation of the election laws.'* And it has been held that if an election is conducted under color of law the defendant can not, as a defense, insist that the election is in- valid."* "3. V. Caldwell, 1 Marv. (Del.) parte Rodriguez, 39 Tex. 752; Mor- 555, 41 Atl. 198. ril v. Haines, 2 N. H. 246; U. S. v. =»S. v. Houston, 103 N. C. 383, 9 Badlnelli, 37 Fed. 138. See Com. S. B. 699. See XJ. S. v. Barnabo, 14 v. Howe, 144 Mass. 144, 10 N. B. Blatchf. (U. S.) 74. 755. " Thompson v. S., 26 Tex. App. 94, "' S. v. Cohoon, 12 Ired. (N. C.) 9 S. W. 486. See McGuire v. S., 7 178, 55 Am. D. 407. Humph. (Tenn.) 54; U. S. v. An- =» Cooper v. S., 25 Tex. App. 530, thony, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 200. 8 S. W. 654; Cooper v. S., 26 Tex. »= P. v. Harris, 29 Cal. 679. App. 575, 10 S. W. 216. "»S. v. Williams, 25 Me. 561; Ex § 2325 ELECTION LAWS. 593 § 2325. Decision of judges, a defense. — The decision of the judges of an election in favor of the right of a person to vote, in the absence of fraud or collusion, must have the effect of securing the voter immu- nity from criminal liability if it should afterwards appear that he did not have the right to vote.*" § 2326. Betting on election. — A proposition to bet on the result of an election, as the putting up of a sum of money which shall be forfeited, on the failure to increase it to the sum of the proposed bet by a certain time, with another who put up the full amount of the proposed bet, is not betting on an election within the meaning of the law.*^ Article III. Indictment. § 2327. Election duly held. — ^In an indictment for illegally voting at a town meeting, it is sufficient to allege that such meeting was duly holden, without stating how, or by what authority, the meeting was called.^' § 2328. Purpose of election essential. — An indictment for a vio- lation of the election law to be sufficient should state that the election was held under authority of and in the manner required by law, and for what purpose held, or otherwise sufficiently identify the character of the election.*" § 2329. Public notice essential.-r-An indictment charging a viola- tion of the election laws is defective if it fails to allege that public no- tice of the election had been given as required by statute.*" § 2330. Statutory words not sufficient. — ^An indictment charging that the defendant knowingly voted in the name of another "at an election for representative in congress," though in the language of the statute, is not sufficient, if the election was held for both state and fed- eral officers.*^ "S. V. Pearson, 97 N. C. 434, 1 "Com. v. Maddox, 17 Ky. L. 557, S. E. 914. 32 S. W. 129. "Rich V. S., 38 Tex. Or. 199, 42 « Blitz v. U. S., 153 U. S. 308, 14 S. W. 291. See Wagoner v. S., 63 S. Ct. 924; U. S. v. Wardell, 49 Fed. Ind. 250. 914; P. v. Neil, 91 Cal. 465, 27 Pac. " S. V. Marshall, 45 N. H. 281. 760. "Gandy v. S., 82 Ala. 61, 2 So. 465. hughes' c. l.— 38 594 hughes' criminal law. § 2331 § 2331. Intent immaterial. — Where a criminal intent is not made an essential element of the offense defined by statute relating to the election laws, such intent need not be alleged in drawing an indict- ment.*^ In charging a person with obstructing officers while in the discharge of their duty by ejecting them from the polls of the elec- tion, the intent with which the act was done is material and must be alleged in the indictment.*^ § 2332, Duplicity — Carrying away ballots, and aiding. — ^TJnder a statute punishing the unlawful interference with the officers conduct- ing an election, an indictment which charges that the defendant un- lawfully carried away, aided and abetted in carrying away and coun- seled and procured the carrying away of the ballot-box containing the ballots of an election is not bad for duplicity.** § 2333. Allegation of candidates immaterial. — An indictment (omitting the formal part) charging that the defendant, at a time and place stated, bribed a person named "to vote at the August election, 1859, with money 'and property of the value of five dollars, and for the said bribe he did vote" for certain persons for certain offices named, is sufficient without alleging that the persons voted for were -candidates for the offices named. *° ■§ 2334. ftualifications of voter. — On a charge of giving intoxicat- ing liquor to a voter on the day of an election, the indictment is suf- ficient in stating generally that .the person to whom intoxicating drink was given was a legally qualified voter at such election without stating the facts constituting such person a qualified voter.** § 2335. Personating another. — An indictment charging one of the ofEense of attempting to vote at a certain election by falsely repre- senting himself to be another person, and applying for a 'Tjallot" in the name of such person, sufficiently states the ofEense under a statute using the words "paper ballot" instead of "ballot."*^ "Com. V. Warner, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. "Com. v. Stephenson, 3 Mete. R. 556; S. v. Caldwell, 1 Marv. (Del.) (Ky.) 226; Com. v. Selby, 87 Ky. 555, 41 Atl. 198; S. v. Lally, 2 Marv. 595, 10 Ky. L. 621, 9 S. W. 819. (Del.) 424, 43 Atl. 258. " S. v. Pearls, 35 W. Va. 320, 13 " U. S. V. Taylor, 57 Fed. 391. S. E. 1006. See S. v. Shaw, 8 « Connors v. U. S., 158 U. S. 408, Humph. (Tenn.) 32. 15 S. Ct. 951. See also U. S. v. "S. v. Timothy, 147 Mo. 532, 49 Egan, 30 Fed. 498. S. W. 499. ^ 2336 ELECTION LAWS. ' 595 § 2336. Voting at primary. — In drawing an indictment or infor- mation for a violation of a primary election law it is not sufficient to charge that the defendant voted at a primary election in a certain precinct named, not being a resident of such precinct; it must also state that the defendant would not, at the next election, be a qualified voter of such precinct.*^ § 2337. Making false return. — An indictment charging an election officer with making a false return as to the number of votes received by the candidates, without setting out the facts wherein the falsity consists, is fatally defective.*^ Charging in an indictment that the defendant, an election effieer, "willfully and unlawfully published a false certificate of the result of an election by making a false re- turn to the board of canvas of the number of votes given at the elec- tion, and willfully, fraudulently and unlawfully made an alteration in said certificate by changing the number of votes at said election," sufiieiently states an ofEense under a statute making it a criminal oSense for any officer to publish any false return of an election, or false certificate of the result, knowing it to be false, or to willfully destroy or deface any such certificate.^" § 2338. Charging false registration. — ^An indictment which, charges that the defendant unlawfully and fraudulently registered iQ a certain election district, he then and there having no lawful right to register therein, is fatally defective in stating merely a con- clusion of law.°^ § 2339. Procuring another to register. — An indictment for unlaw- fully procuring or advising another to register as a voter must set out the a<;ts done by the defendant, charging that he did so with in- tent to cause fraudulent registration.^^ But the particular words of advice need not be set out in the indictment.^^ § 2340. False registration. — An indictment charging false registra- tion by a voter falsely stating his place of residence must aver that he- "Calcoat V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 245, 39 " S. v. Clark, 2 Marv. (Del.) 456, S. W. 364. 43 Atl. 254. "S. V. Conway, 2 Marv. (Del.) "' S. v. Vincent, 1 Marv. (Del.) 453, 43 Atl. 253; Com. v. Eckert, 14 560, 41 Atl. 199; U. S. v. McCabe, 58 Ky. L. 250, 20 S. W. 253. See S. v. Fed. 557. Clark, 2 Marv. (Del.) 456, 43 Atl. '=U. S. v. McCabe, 58 Fed. 557. 254. »U. S. V. Brown, 58 Fed. 558. 596 ' hughes' criminal law. § 2341 made such false statement to the registration officers at the time he registered ; otherwise it will be defective.'^* § 2341. Kegistering twice. — An indictment setting out the offense in the words of the statute, that the defendant unlawfully registered in two election districts, is good, although he had a right to register in one of the two districts mentioned.^''- § 2342. Voting fraudulently. — ^An information, although in the words of the statute, charging a person with voting unlawfully and fraudulently, is fatally defective if it fails to allege the particular facts showing that the defendant was not entitled to vote, and in charging fraud generally without stating the facts constituting the fraud.=» § 2343. Voting more than once. — It is the voting more than once at the same election which the statute prohibits, and not the voting more than once for the same candidates for office. The indictment, therefore, need not state that the defendant's second vote was cast for certain officers or candidates named who were to be voted for ; it is im- material whether the same or different candidates are voted for on the two occasions. °' "Under a statute providing that whoever votes more than once at the same election shall be imprisoned in the peni- tentiary," an indictment charging that the defendant, at a time and place named, "did unlawfully, willfully and knowingly vote more than once, to wit, twice, at a certain corporation election, then and there being duly holden and authorized to be holden by the laws of the state of Ohio," is fatally defective in not designating the election men- tioned; its words may refer to an election of a private corporation.^* An indictment which charges that the defendant, having once voted at an election, afterwards fraudulently procured and handed in an- other ballot with intent to have it counted, and did fraudulently pro- "U. S. v. Jacques, 55 Fed. 53. Cr. Proc, § 627; Quinn v. S., 35 Ind. ""S. V. Caldwell, 1 Marv. (Del.) 487, 9 Am. R. 754. Contra, S. v. 555, 41 Atl. 198. See S. v. Lally, 2 Marshall, 45 N. H. 281; Com. v. Marv. (Del.) 424, 43 Atl. 258. Shaw, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 52; S. "v. "» P. v. Neil, 91 Cal, 465, 27 Pac. Douglass, 7 Iowa 414. 760; P. V. McKenna, 81 Cal. 159, 22 " S. v. Welch, 21 Minn. 22; S. v. Pac. 488; S. v. Bruce, 5 Or. 68. See Minnick, 15 Iowa 125; Steinwehr Banyon v. S., 108 Ga. 49, 33 S. B. v. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 586. 845; P. V. Standish, 6 Park. Cr. (N. "'Lane v. S., 39 Ohio St. 312; Tip- Y.) Ill; S. V. Moore, 27 N. J. L. 105; ton v. S., 27 Ind. 493. Gordon v. S., 52 Ala. 308; 1 Blsh. § 2344 ELECTION LAWS. 597 cure such ballot to be deposited in the ballot-box as a lawful ballot, and counted, does not sufficiently state any ofEense under a statute de- claring it to be a criminal oiJense "to vote more than once," or "know- ingly cast more than one ballot" at the same election.^® § 2344. Acting as officer essential. — A statute which provides that "if any judge or clerk of an election, or any other person, shall will- fully and knowingly receive and place in the ballot-box any ballot not legally voted by a qualified voter," he shall be punished, has no appli- cation to persons except judges or clerks of election or to persons act- ing in that capacity ; and an indictment failing to charge that the de- fendant was so acting is fatally defective.®" § 2345. Officer's appointment essential. — An indictment against a judge of the election laws, charging that he was acting at an election ''duly and regularly called and ordered" by the governing authority of the party holding the election, is defective in that it fails to allege that the defendant was appointed by the governing authority of the party holding the election.'^ § 2346. Description of ballots. — The indictment, in failing to de- scribe the ballots alleged to have been unlawfully and fraudulently put into the ballot-box, or by whom such ballots purport to have been cast, is defective, unless it charges that these matters were un- known to the grand jury.®^ § 2347. Destruction of ballots. — On a charge of violating the elec- tion laws by the destruction of ballots, an indictment charging gen- erally that the defendant unlawfully did destroy certain ballots men- tioned, is sufficient, and need not set out the particular manner of such destruction.®^ § 2348. Altering ballots. — ^Jn drawing an indictment charging the defendant with changing a ballot with the intent to deprive a voter from voting for such person as he intended, it is not sufficient to ■^S. V. Miller, 132 Mo. 29T, 33 S. '' S. v. Krueger, 134 Mo. 262, 35 W. 1149. S. W. 604. ™ S. V. Krueger, 134 Mo. 262, 35 " S. v. Mundy, 2 Marv. (Del.) 429, S. W. 604. 43Atl. 260. "Com. V. Maddox, 17 Ky. L. 557, 32 S. W. 129. 598 hughes' criminal law. § 2349 charge the offense, in the language of the statute, that the defendant changed the ballot; it must specifically set out what changes were made to the ballot.** § 2349. Officer willfully violating. — Where the law requires that two of the election judges should assist a voter to prepare his ballot to vote, if he requests assistance, an indictment charging a judge of an election with an offense by himself alone assisting a voter to prepare his ballot states no offense unless it charges that he did the act will- fully or negligently.*' But it has been held that an officer of regis- tration is liable to a criminal prosecution for wrongfully publishing the names of qualified voters in the list of names required to be stricken from the registry list, although not charged to have been fraudulently or corruptly done."" § 2350. Bribing voter. — In drawing an indictment for giving or offering to give "money, property or other valuable thing to a voter to influence his vote," it is not necessary to allege that such influence was intended to secure such vote for some particular candidate named."^ Under a statute making it a criminal offense for any person "to buy or sell or be concerned in buying or selling" any vote at any state or county election, an indictment alleging that the defendant, at a time and place stated, did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms buy the vote of a person named, by then and there paying to said person, naming him, fifty cents in money, on condition that the said person should vote at a certain county election, is sufficient.** § 2351. Breach of the peace. — An information charging a breach of the peace at a voting place, at a general public election, must set out where the voting place was and by what means the election was dis- turbed.*" Article IV. Evidence ; Variance. § 2352. Ballots competent. — The ballots cast at an election are competent evidence, where preserved, on the trial of a cause for a viola- tion of the election laws.^" " Hunter v. P., 52 111. App. 367. " Cohen v. S., 104 Ga. 734, 30 S. "U. S. V. Dwyer, 56 Fed. 464. E. 932; Brown v. S., 104 Ga. 736, ""Mincher v. S., 66 Md. 227, 7 30 S. E. 951. Atl. 451. «» Wright v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 55 S. "S. V. Downs, 148 Ind. 324, 47 W. 48. N. E. 670. ™Com. v. Ryan, 157 Mass. 403, 32 N. E. 349. § 2353 ELECTION LAWS. 599 § 2353. Poll-book — Certificate. — On a charge of making a false certificate to the poll-books of an election, the certificate on the poll- books is prima facie evidence that it was signed by the precinct elec- tion oifieers.'^ § 2354. Concealing election documents. — Where one is charged Tvith a violation of the election laws by concealing from the public the registration lists, it is competent to show in evidence all the circum- stances attending any unsuccessful attempts to obtain access to such lists." § 2355. How voters voted. — It is not competent to show by the voters whom they voted for, on a charge against a clerk of an election for making a false return as such clerk.'^ § 2356. Willfulness essential. — In the absence of proof that an in- spector at an election, knowingly, willfully or corruptly refused or neglected to receive the ballot of a person qualified to vote, there can be no conviction.''* But whether an act, such, for instance, as the procuring of another to falsely register, was done willfully, inten- tionally or knowingly, or not, is a question for the jury to determine.^** § 2357. Altering ballot willfully. — On a charge of willfully and fraudulently altering a ballot with intent to cheat and defraud, by drawing lines across the name of a candidate on the ballot, it is suffi- cient if the proof shows the erasure of the surname of such candi- date." § 2358. Evidence circumstantial. — On a charge of the unlawful destruction of ballots, the evidence being entirely circumstantial, it must appear that there was no other reasonable way to account for such destruction than that charged against the accused.'" § 2359. Inducing another to vote. — On a charge of voting unlaw- fully by falsely personating and voting in the name of another at an "Com. V. O'Hara, 17 Ky. L. 1030, "aMcBarron v. S., 63 N. J. L. 43. 33 S. W. 412. 42 Atl. 777. " P. V. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455, 38 " Com. v. McGurty, 145 Mass. 257. N. B. 950. 14 N. E. 98. " Com. V. Barry, 98 Ky. 394, 17 '» S. v. Mundy, 2 Marv. (Del.) 429, -Ky. L. 1018, 33 S. W. 400. 43 Atl. 260. " S. V. Tuibell, 26 Ind. 264. 600 ' hughes' criminal law. § 2360 election, proof that the defendant controlled, aided and directed an- other to so vote is sufficient under a statute which provides that per- sons who aid and abet in the commission of an offense shall be deemed principals.'^ § 2360. Jurisdiction — Federal court. — Any criminal offense com- mitted in violation of the election laws, at an election when a con- gressman is to be voted for and elected, is an offense against the United States, and the federal courts have jurisdiction to punish the offender, although the offense thus committed may have been intended to affect the result of local or state officers, and not the election of the con- gressman.'* "Lionetti v. P., 183 111. 253, 55 "In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 S. N. E. 668. Ct. 1263, 31 Fed. 794. CHAPTER LX. POSTAL LAW VIOLATIONS. Akt. I. Statutory Provisions, §§ 2361-3368 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2369-3373 III. Indictment, §§ 3374-3387 IV. Evidence; Variance, §§ 2388-3391 Aeticlb I. Statutory PEOVisioiirs. § 2361. Federal statutes. — There are many criminal offenses de- fined and enumerated in the federal statutes relating to the postal service of the United States, foi[ the details of which the reader is re- ferred to the statutes themselves. § 2362. Obstructing mails. — A person who knowingly prevents trains running which carry United States mail commits a criminal act by obstructing the passage of the mail, even though he may be willing that mail cars may go, but not other cars.^ § 2363. Scheme to defraud. — A "scheme or artifice to defraud" by use of the mails does not necessarily mean a common law or statutory fraud, within the meaning of the statute against defrauding through the mails.^ § 2364. Advertising counterfeit money. — Sending circulars through the mails for the purpose of inducing persons to purchase counterfeit money comes within the statute against the use of the mails to defraud.^ ' In re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 840. ' U. S. v. Lorlng, 91 Fed. 881. See also U. S. v. Debs, 65 Fed. 210; "Streep v. U. S., 160 U. S. 128, 16 U. S. V. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; U. S. S. Ct. 244. V. Sears, 55 Fed. 268. (601) 602 hughes' criminal law. § 2365 § 2365. Collection agency sending paper — ^A collection agency, by issuing and sending a paper through the mails, containing notices of accounts against persons who fail to pay their debts, and advertising such accounts in the paper, violates the law, such published notices appearing to have been made for the purpose of coercing payment. This method of enforcing the collection of accounts is "calculated by the term or manner of display, and obviously intended to reflect injuriously upon the character of another."* § 2366. Dunning demand and threat on card. — Under a statute making it a criminal offense to send through the mails any matter upon the envelope or wrapper of which, or any postal card upon which any delineation or language of an indecent, defamatory or threaten- ing character is written or printed, the sending of a postal card through the mail making demand on a person to pay a debt, with the threat that if not paid at once the claim will be placed in the hands of a lawyer, is a violation.^ § 2367. Obscene language essential. — Although a letter may have been sent through the mail for an immoral or obscene purpose, or se- duction, yet such letter can not be the basis of a criminal prosecution for sending an obscene letter through the mail without containing obscene language. ° § 2368. Breaking into postoffice. — The breaking into any building used in part as a postoffice, "with intent to commit larceny therein," is a criminal act by statutory definition, and means that part of such building used for a postoffice.' Article II. Matters op Defense. § 2369. Opening letter after delivery. — The opening of a letter and abstracting its contents after it has been delivered as addressed or directed is not a violation of the postal law, the United States no longer having the custody of it after delivery.' *U. S. V. Durnell, 75 Fed. 824. 'U. S. v. Saunders, 77 Fed. 170; See U. S. V. Dodge, 70 Fed. 235; XJ. S. v. Campbell, 16 Fed. 233, 9 U. S. V. Brown, 43 Fed. 135. Sawy. 20. See U. S. v. Yennle, 74 "U. S. v. Bayle, 40 Fed. 664; U. Fed. 221 (breaking); U. S. v. Wil- S. V. Smith, 69 Fed. 971. Hams, 57 Fed. 201. •U. S. V. Lamkin, 73 Fed. 459. 'U. S. v. Huilsman, 94 Fed. 486; § 2370 POSTAL LAW VIOLATIONS. 603 § 2370. Sending dunning letter. — The sending of a respectful dun- ning letter in an unsealed envelope, with the name of the collection bureau thereon, as "Mercantile Protection and Collection Bureau," is not a violation of the postal law forbidding the sending of envelopes bearing any language of a defamatory or threatening character."* § 2371. Issuing money orders without collecting. — A postmaster who issues money orders without receiving the money for them com- mits embezzlement of the money order funds; and that he intended to collect and account for the money on making his settlement with the government is no defense.^" § 2372. Letter sealed or not, immaterial. — The mailing of a letter containing obscene or indecent matter is within the statute, whether such letter is sealed or not, although the envelope may not have on it anything obscene.^'- § 2373. Fraud ineifective, no defense. — The sending of any letter, document or circular through the mail for the purpose of carrying out a scheme to defraud is a violation of the postal laws, although such letter or document may not be effective in furthering such unlawful scheme.^^ Article III. Indictment. § 2374. lottery scheme essential. — ^An indictment for sending cir- culars through the mails concerning a lottery, which fails to set out the scheme of such lottery, is defective.^* §2375. Indictment, as to lottery. — An indictment charging the defendant with using the mails for the purpose of carrying on the lottery business, causing letters concerning such lottery business to be addressed to him under a false, fictitious and assumed name, and re- ceiving such letters from the postofiice, sufBciently states the offense.^* U. S. V. Lee, 90 Fed. 256; U. S. v. "^Durland v. II. S., 161 U. S. 306, Safford, 66 Fed. 942. 16 S. Ct. 244; Weeber v. U. S., 62 °In re Barber, 75 Fed. 980. See Fed. 740; U. S. v. Mitchell, 36 Fed. U. S. V. Smith, 69 Fed. 971. 492. '"Vives V. U. S., 92 Fed. 355. "U. S. v. McDonald, 65 Fed. 486; "U. S. V. Ling, 61 Fed. 1001; U. S. U. S. v. Beatty, 60 Fed. 740. V. Nathan, 61 Fed. 936; Grimm v. "McDaniel v. U. S., 87 Fed. 324; U. S., 156 U. S. 604, 15 S. Ct. 470; U. S. v. Conrad, 59 Fed. 458. Lot- TI. S. V. Martin, 50 'Fed. 918; An- tery scheme described: U. S. v. draws v. U. S., 162 U. S. 420. Fulkerson, 74 Fed. 619; U. S. v. 604 hughes' criminal law. § 2376 § 2376. Indictment — Stating lottery scheme. — Charging in an in- dictment that the defendant "did knowingly deposit in a postoffice an envelope containing a certain pamphlet concerning a certain lottery, which said lottery was then and there being conducted by a certain corporation/' naming it, sufficiently states the offense.^' §2377. "Unlawful and wrongful" essential. — An indictment charging the embezzlement of mail from any postoffice, in failing to allege that the taking was unlawful and wrongful, is not sufficient.^' § 2378. "Of indecent character" immaterial. — ^Under a statute making it a criminal offense to deposit in the mail obscene, lewd or lascivious books, letters or other like matter, an indictment charging the offense of depositing an obscene, lewd and lascivious letter in the mails is sufficient. The words, "and of an indecent character," are not essential.^'' § 2379. Indictment, address essential. — In charging the offense of mailing newspapers containing an obscene article the indictment must contain an averment that such newspapers were addressed or that direction was given for mailing or delivery. An allegation that the newspapers were deposited "for mailing and delivery" is not suffi- cient.^* § 2380. Indictment — Matter too obscene. — If the document al- leged to have been sent through the mail is so obscene and indecent that it ought not to be spread upon the records of the court, then, if it is so described as to reasonably inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him, that is sufficient.^' § 2381. Indictment alleging scheme. — An indictment charging the defendant with devising a fraudulent scheme to be effected by opening correspondence by means of the postoffice establishment must allege McDonald, 59 Fed. 563; U. S. v. " Tlmmons v. U. S., 85 Fed. 204. Politzer, 59 Fed. 273; U. S. v. Wallis, '«U. S. v. Brazeau, 78 Fed. 464. 58 Fed. 942; Horner v. U. S., 147 "U. S. v. Fuller, 72 Fed. 771; U. U. S. 449, 13 S. Ct. 409. S. v. Reid, 73 Fed. 289; Rosen v. U. •"U. S. V. Fulkerson, 74 Fed. 619. S., 161 U. S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434. See "U. S. V. Smith, 11 Utah 433, 40 Grimm v. U. S., 156 U. S. 604, 15 Pac. 708. S. Ct. 470. § 2382 POSTAL LAW VIOLATIONS. 605 that the defendant designed the accomplishment of such scheme by means of the postoffice.^" § 2382. Indictment — ^Manner of conversion immaterial. — ^In an in- dictment for carrying on a fraudulent scheme by use of the mails by inducing persons to send money to the defendant, with intent to con- vert it to his own use, it is not necessary to set out in what manner such conversion was to be accomplished.^^ § 2383. Indictment should describe document. — An indictment charging one with depositing a letter in the mail for the purpose of ad- vertising or giving information where and of whom an article for pro- curing abortions could be obtained should set out the letter or in some manner describe it that the accused may be informed of the nature of the charge against him.^^ §2384. Indictment — ^Not double. — An indictment charging the ofiense of defrauding persons by use of the mails, "by opening cor- respondence" with a person, or by inciting the person addressed to open correspondence, is not objectionable in stating the offense "by opening correspondence and by inciting the person addressed to open correspondence."^* § 2385. Different acts may be joined in different counts. — ^Different acts of fraud by use of the mails, growing out of the same fraudulent scheme, may be set out in the indictment in different counts.^* Al- though the breaking into a postoffice with intent to commit larceny and the actual stealing are distinct offenses, yet, when both acts were done at the same time they constitute but one transaction, and may be joined in a single count in the indictment.^^ § 238G. Consolidating several indictments. — The consolidation of eight different indictments for using the postoffice for a scheme to defraud did not transform them into one case where, on conviction, but one sentence could be pronounced.^* '°U. S. v. Long, 68 Fed. 348; U. "U. S. v. Bernard, 84 Fed. 634. S. V. Harris, 68 Fed. 347. ^ U. S. v. Loring, 91 Fed. 881. " U. S. V. Loring, 91 Fed. 881. == U. S. v. Yennie, 74 Fed. 221. "U. S. V. Tubbs, 94 Fed. 356. See "Howard v. U. S., 75 Fed. 986. U. S. V. Loring, 91 Fed. 881. 606 hughes' criminal law. § 2387 § 2387. Prosecution — ^Where commenced. — A prosectition for a vio- lation of the postal laws must be commenced in the district in which the offense was committed; as, for instance, where the matter was placed in the mail.^' Article IV. Evidence ; Vaeiance. § 2388. Decoy letters to fictitious person. — ^Decoy letters mailed by detectives or officers to fictitious persons for the purpose of detect- ing criminals are within the statute against abstracting and stealing from the mail.^^ The fact that a postoffice inspector opens a letter ad- dressed to himself, under a fictitious name, does not render the evi- dence of such inspector incompetent.^' § 2389. Sending indecent letters — ^Evidence. — On a charge of sending lewd and lascivious letters through the mails, evidence that the person sending such letters afterwards had illicit intercourse with the person to whom the letters were sent is incompetent.^" § 2390. Way bills competent evidence. — On a charge of conspiracy to defraud persons through the mails, way bills of a railroad company, showing a shipment of goods obtained from persons by such con- spiracy, are competent evidence.^^ § 2391. Variance — ^Name — Real and fictitious. — On a charge of using a false, fictitious or assumed name for the purpose of carrying on a scheme to defraud through the mails, evidence that the accused aided a real person of the name mentioned in carrying out such a scheme will not support the charge. ^^ "U. S. V. Sauer, 88 Fed. 249; » Andrews v. U. S., 162 U. S. 420, Horner v. U. S., 143 V. S. 570, 12 16 S. Ct. 798; U. S. v. Slenker, 32 S. Ct. 522. Fed. 691. ==Hall V. U. S., 168 U. S. 632, 18 "Safter v. U. S., 87 Fed. 329. See S. Ct. 237; U. S. v. Jones, 80 Fed. U. S. v. Walter Scott, 87 Fed. 721. 513; Scott V. U. S., 172 U. S. 343, "^ Stokes v. U. S., 157 U. S. 187, 15 19 S. Ct. 209; Montgomery v. U. S., S. Ct. 617. 162 U. S. 410, 16 S. Ct. 797; Goode » Tingle v. U. S., 87 Fed. 320. V. U. S., 159 U. S. 663, 16 S. Ct. 136. See 2 McClaln Cr. L., § 1335. CHAPTER LXI. REVENUE LAW VIOLATIONS. Akt. I. Statutory Provisions, §§ 2392-2396 II. Matters of Defense, §§ 2397-2403 III. Indictment, §§ 2404-2407 , Article I. Statutokt Provisions. § 2392. Tederal statutes. — The federal statutes relating to the as- sessment and collection of revenues contain various provisions, viola- tions of which are made criminal offenses, such as retailing spirituous liquors without a license, smuggling imported goods without paying import duty, and other evasions enumerated in the statutes. § 2393. Smuggling and receiving — Misdemeanors. — The offenses of smuggling and receiving smuggled goods are both misdemeanors, as defined by statute, though the punishment for each may be imprison- ment in a state penitentiary in addition to a fine.^ § 2394. Possession of smuggled goods, prima facie. — ^If smuggled goods be found in possession of a person, that constitutes prima facie evidence of his guilt, and the burden is on him to overcome the pre- sumption of guilt.^ § 2395. Unlading goods. — The federal statute relating to the un- lading or transferring of cargoes of vessels after the arrival of vessels in the United States has no application to vessels which have no cargo to be unladen in the United States.^ * Reagan v. V. S., 157 U. S. 301, 'The Coquitlam (Earle v. U. S)., 15 S. Ct. 610. 77 Fed. 744, 23 C. C. A. 438. 'U. S. V. Fraser, 42 Fed. 140. (607) 608 hughes' criminal law. § 2396 § 2396. Physician must pay tax. — A physician in the practice of medicine who prescribes whiskey and furnishes it himself to his pa- tients is liable under the revenue law requiring the payment of a spe- cial tax by dealers in sprituous liquors.* Aeticle II. Matters op Defense. § 2397. Sale by clerk, principal liable. — Sales of liquor made by the clerk of a druggist without payment of the special tax render the principal liable, if such sales were made by the clerk in the due course of business." § 2398. Proprietary medicines not included. — Patent or proprie- tary medicines which are manufactured and sold in good faith as medi- cines are not included in the law requiring the payment of a special tax on "domestic distilled spirits," although one of the ingredients of such patent medicines may be distilled spirits of sufficient quantity-to produce intoxication when used as a beverage.^ § 2399. Destruction by fire is "removal." — The destruction of dis- tilled spirits by fire while in the warehouse is a "removal" within the meaning of the law relating to the payment of taxes on such goods. '^ One who aids and abets another in the unlawful removal of illicit spirits may be prosecuted and convicted as principal, because all par- ticipants in a misdemeanor are regarded as principals. And this course may be pursued, although by statute such aiding and abetting are made a distinct offense.* § 2400. Shipping or removing applies to all. — The federal statute making it unlawful for any person to ship, transport or remove any liquors or wines under any other than the proper name or brand designating the kind and quality is not limited in its application to manufacturers, rectifiers and distillers. The intention of the statute is to prevent frauds on the revenue by requiring all packages which are shipped to be marked or branded truthfully, and includes all per- sons making such shipments.* •U. S. V. Smith, 45 Fed. 115. »U. S. v. Wilson, 69 Fed. 144. ' U. S. V. White, 42 Fed. 138. See ' U. S. v. Peace, 53 Fed. 999, 4 U. S. V. Davis, 37 Fed. 468; U. S. C. C. A. 148, 8 U. S. App. 283. V. Starnes, 37 Fed. 665; U. S. v. »U. S. v. Sykes, 58 Fed. 1000. Calhoun, 39 Fed. 604; U. S. v. Al- 'U. S. v. Campe, 89 Fed. 697. len, 38 Fed. 736. See "Intoxicating Liquors." § 2401 REVENUE LAW VIOLATIONS. 609 § 2401. Forfeiture of distilled spirits. — The federal statute provid- ing for a forfeiture of "all distilled spirits or wines and personal prop- erty found in a distillery," yard or other place constituting a part of the premises, for unlawfully carrying on the distilling business, applies to any personal property on the premises, even though sold by the dis- tiller before the commission of the offense.^" § 2402. Goods, when subject to forfeiture. — Removing the contents of casks or packages which have been properly stamped and branded and putting in other distilled spirits of a lower proof renders the goods subject to forfeiture, although there was no intent to defraud any pri- vate person.^^ Any cask or package of distilled spirits containing more than five gallons, bearing a distillery warehouse stamp and in- spection mark, but without any date showing when received into the warehouse, as required by law, is liable to forfeiture. Each cask and pa,ckage must have on it "each mark and stamp required by law."^" § 2403. Giving bond secures costs. — Where goods are seized by the United States for undervaluation under the revenue laws, the claim- ant, on giving bond as required, is entitled to have the goods delivered to him without being required to pay the costs incurrred by such seiz- ure. The bond so given is ample security in the event of a recovery.^* Article III. Indictment. § 2404. Statutory words sufficient. — An indictment charging one with aiding in the concealment of distilled spirits on which the tax had not been paid, and which had been removed to a place other than that provided by law, being in the words of the statute, is sufficient, without averring that there was a warehouse for such spirits.^^ § 2405. Statutory words — Dealing in liquor. — An indictment for the unlawful dealing in spiritous liquors, which charges, in the words of the statute, that the defendant "did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously carry on the business of a retail liquor dealer without '°U. S. V. Stowell, 133 U. S. 1, 10 "U. S. v. Eight Cases of Paper, S. Ct 244. 98 Fed. 416. " U. S. V. 9 Casks & Packages, etc., " Pounds v. U. S., 171 U. S. 35, 51 Fed. 191. 18 S. Ct. 729. " U. S. V. 9 Casks & Packages, etc., 51 Fed. 191. hughes' c. l. — 39 610 hughes' criminal law. § 2406 having paid the special tax therefor, as required by law," sufficiently states the offense defined by statute.^^ § 2406. Indictment sufficient as to knowledge. — An indictment which charges that the defendant "did willfully, unlawfully and know- ingly, and with intent to defraud the revenues of the United States, smuggle and clandestinely introduce into the United States" certain goods named, sufficiently states the offense without averring that the defendant knew the duty had not been paid on the goods.^° § 2407. Indictment — "Willfully and intentionally."— Charging in an information that the defendant "did unlawfully change and alter" the marks and stamps on a package is a sufficient averment that the act was willfully and intentionally done.^^ "> Ledbetter v. U. S., 170 U. S. 606, " U. S. v. Bardenheier, 49 Fed. 18 S. Ct. 774. 846. ■» Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S. 185, 15 S. Ct. 325. CHAPTER LXII. TREASON. §2408. Statutory definition. — This crime is defined by the con- stitution of the United States: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason ; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the at- tainted."^ § 2409. Against federal and state governments. — "Treason can be committed as well against a state as the United States. But the same act which is treason against the United States is not necessarily such also against the state. By constitutional or statutory provisions in most of the states, the offense against the state is limited substantially as by the national constitution and laws: it is as against the United. States."^' ' U. S. Const, Art. 3, § 3. See 4 '2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 1254. Bl. Com. 81. (611) CHAPTEE LXIIL PIRACY. § 2410. Piracy defined — Common law definition. — Piracy is a crime against the law of nations, and pirates may be captured any- where on the high seas by any sovereignty or by private ships of any nation, and tried.^ The offense of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.^ The federal statutes provide that "every person who, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of na- tions, and is afterward brought into or found in the United States, shall suffer death.^ § 2411. Felonious intent essential. — To constitute the crime of piracy there must be not only a felonious intent, but an overt act coupled with such intent.* § 2412. Who are pirates. — "Persons who act on the high seas under the assumed authority of a government to which belligerent rights have not been accorded by any recognized government will be treated as pirates ; but if a recognized state of belligerency between two oppos- ing powers exist, the United States government will not treat those who act under one of such powers as pirates, although the power un- der which they act has not been recognized by it as an independent state."^ ^The Marianna Flora, 11 "Wheat. 'The City of Mextco, 28 Fed. 148; (TJ. S.) 1; U. S. V. Ross, 1 Gall. (C. U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 228; C.) 624; U. S. v. Pirates, 5 Wheat. tJ. S. v. Tully, 1 Gall. (C. G.) 247. (U. S.) 184; U. S. V. Furlong, 5 ■> 2 McClain Cr. L., § 1359, citing Wheat. (U. S.) 184. The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. 408; M Bl. Com. 171, 172; 1 Kent Com. U. S. v. Klintock, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 183; 2 Bish. New Cr. L., § 1057; TJ. 144; The Magellan Pirates, 1 Spinks S. V. Baker, 5 Blatchf. (C. C.) 6. Bccl. & Adm. 81. »U. S. Rev. Stat. 1874. (612) § 2413 PIRACY. 613 §2413. Jurisdiction on Potomac river. — By federal statute, it is made piracy to commit robbery on any vessel within tide waters out- side the territorial jurisdiction of the state courts. The federal court located in the state of Virginia has no jurisdiction to try a case of robbery committed on the Potomac river between Washington, D. C, and Alexander, in the state of Virginia.* « Ex parte Ballinger, 88 Fed. 781. PART EIGHT MATTERS OF DEFENSE CHAPTER LXIV. !Aet. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. DEFENSES. Alibi, as Defense, §§ 2414-2419 Attempt — Act Essential, Age — Too Young to Commit, Another Committed Offense, § § 2420 2421 2422 Drunkenness as Defense, 2423-2426 Detective — ^When Defense, § 2427 Owner Consenting to Act, Ignorance of Law, Insanity as Defense, . Self-defense, . . . §§ §§ 2428 2429 2430-2441 2442-2449 Defending Others, Defending Habitation, Accident as Defense, . §§ 2450 2451 2452-2453 Suicide as Defense, § 2454 Taking One's Own Properly, Wife Compelled by Husband, Mutual Combat, .... § § 2455-2457 2458 2459 Statute Repealed, .... Mere Presence — No Offense, 2460 2461 Statute of Limitations, • § 2462 Article I. Alibi, as Defense. § 2414. Alibi — ^Burden on defendant. — ^As to the defense of an alibij the burden is on the defendant to establish in its support such (614) § 2415 DEFENSES. 615 facts and circumstances, as, when considered in connection with all the other evidence in the case, create in the minds of the jury a rea- sonable doubt of the truth of the charge against him.^ In some juris- dictions the burden is on the accused to establish the defense of alibi by preponderance of the evidence.^ § 2415. Alibi — Burden does not shift. — The burden of proof does not change when the defendant undertakes to prove an alibij and if, by reason of the evidence of such alibi, the jury should have a doubt of the guilt of the defendant, he would be entitled to an acquittal, al- though the jury might not be able to say that the alibi was fully proved.^ § 2416. Alibi not to be suspected. — The defense of alibi is as legiti- mate as any other defense, and the court should not, by instruction or otherwise, throw suspicion upon it.* § 2417. Alibi, when not established. — The defense of alibi is not sustained where it appears not inconsistent that the accused might have been at the place where the crime was committed as well as the place where he claimed to have been.^ § 2418. Alibi — ^What required. — When a defense rests upon proof of an alibi, it must cover the time when the offense is shown to have 'Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. Am. C. R. 35; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. E. 244; Garrity v. P., 107 111. 162; § 1061. See also S. v. Lowry, 42 Mullins V. P., 110 111. 46; Ackerson W. Va. 205, 24 S. E. 561; Beavers v. v. P., 124 111. 563, 16 N. B. 847; S. S., 103 Ala. 36, 15 So. 616; Carlton V. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S. W. 449; v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. E. 244; S. Hoge V. P., 117 111. 44, 6 N. E. 796; v. Conway, 56 Kan. 682, 44 Pac. 627; Towns V. S., Ill Ala. 1, 20 So. 598; Harrison v. S., 83 Ga. 129, 9 S. E. Beavers V. S., 103 Ala. 36, 15 So. 616; 542; P. v. Plchette, 111 Mich. 461, P. V. Pichette, 111 Mich. 461, 69 N. 69 N. W. 739; S. v. Chee Gong, 16 W. 739; Henson v. S., 112 Ala. 41, Or. 534, 19 Pac. 607; Ware v. S., 59 21 So. 79; S. v. Fry, 67 Iowa 475, Ark. 379, 27 S. W. 485; Borrego v. 25 N. W. 738; S. v. McClellan, 23 Ter., 8 N. M. 446, 46 Pac. 349. Mont. 532, 59 Pac. 924; P. v. Resh, 'Miller v. P., 39 111. 465; Albin 107 Mich. 251, 65 N. W. 99; Under- v. S., 63 Ind. 598, 3 Am. C. R. 295. hill Cr. Ev., § 152. Contra, S. v. 'Aneals v. P., 134 111. 401, 25 N. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483, 8 Am. E. 3022; Brlceland v. Com., 74 Pa. C. R. 222. St. 463, 2 Green C. R. 529. See also 'S. v. MeCracken, 66 Iowa 669, Klein v. P., 113 111. 596; Norris v 24 N. W. 43; S. v. Hamilton, 57 P., 101 111. 410; Wisdom v. P., 11 Iowa 596, 11 N. W. 5; Lucas v. S., Colo. 170, 17 Pac. 519; Beavers v 110 Ga. 756. 36 S. E. 87. S., 103 Ala. 36, 15 So. 616. ' Walters v. S., 39 Ohio St. 215, 4 616 HUGHES criminal law. § 2419 been committed, so as to preclude the possibility of the prisoner's presence at the place of the crime. The value of the defense con- sists in its showing that he was absent from where the deed was done at the very time the evidence of the commonwealth tends to fix its commission upon him ; for if it be possible that he could have been at both places, the proof of the alibi is valueless.' § 2419. Impeaching defendant — On alibi. — Where the defendant testified that he was at a place other than where the crime was com- mitted, he may be asked on cross-examination what or whom he saw at the place he claims he was, and the prosecution may call witnesses to contradict him as to what was to be seen at such place.'' Article II. Attempt — Act Essential. § 2420. Attempt ; overt act essential. — An attempt to commit a crime is an endeavor to accomplish it, carried beyond mere prepara- tion, but falling short of execution of the ultimate design in any part of it. Merely preparing to commit a crime and doing no act toward its perpetration is not indictable.* The mere attempt to deliver tools to a prisoner in jail, without the delivery thereof, will not support a conviction or verdict of guilty of attempting to set at liberty the pris- oner, as charged in the indictment.' Article III. Age — Too Young to Commit. § 2421. Age — Defendant too young — Seven to fourteen years. — ^If the defendant is not fourteen years old the law presumes that he lacks the mental capacity to commit criminal acts ; and such presumption can be overcome only by evidence strong and clear, beyond all doubt and contradiction, that he was capable of discerning between good and evil.^" Between the ages of seven and fourteen years, the law pre- sumes the infant doli incapax, and it devolves upon the prosecution "Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 463, fin v. S., 26 Ga. 493; 3 Greenl. Ev. 2 Green C. R. 529. Contra, as to "a (Redf. ed.), § 2. possibility," Adams v. S., 42 Ind. "Patrick v. P., 132 111. 534, 24 373, 2 Green G. R. 686. N. E. 619. 'P. V. Gibson, 58 Mich. 368, 25 "Angelo v. P., 96 111. 212; 3 N. W. 316; Underbill Or. Ev., § 151. Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 4; 1 Bish. "Patrick v. P., 132 111. 534, 24 N. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 368; 4 Bl. Com. E. 619. See also Cox v. P., 82 111. 23. 191; P. v. Murray, 14 Cal. 159; Grif- § 2422 DEFENSES. 617 to establish the infant to be doli capax, by evidence strong and clear, beyond all doubt and contradiction.^^ Under seven years of age, in- deed, an infant can not be guilty of felony ; for then a felonious dis- cretion is almost an impossibility in nature.^^ Article IV. Another Committed Ofeeksb. § 2422. Another committed the crime. — Although it may be posi- tively proved that one of two or more persons committed a crime, yet, if it is uncertain which is the guilty party, all must be acquitted.^* It is competent to show by legal evidence that another committed the crime charged, but this can not be shown by the admissions or threats of a third person not under oath, which are only hearsay.^* Article V. Drunkenness as Defense. § 2423. Drunkenness no excuse. — Voluntary drunkenness shall not be an excuse for the commission of any crime or misdemeanor; and the statute on the subject is but declaratory of the common law.^° Where the requisite proof is advanced to show a wicked, intentional murder, the defendant is not permitted to show a voluntary and tem- porary intoxication in extenuation of his crime.^° The crime of mur- der can not be reduced to manslaughter by showing that the perpe- trator was drunk, when the same offense, if committed by a sober man, would be murder.^^ "S. V. Adams, 76 Mo. 355, 4 Am. 75; S. v. Bishop, 73 N. C. 44, 1 Am. C. R. 394; Angelo v. P., 96 111. 209; C. R. 594; Davis v. Com., 95 Ky. 19, S. V. Tice, 90 Mo. 112, 2 S. W. 269; 15 Ky. L. 396, 23 S. W. 585; Holt Godfrey v. S., 31 Ala. 323; S. v. v. S., 9 Tex. App. 571. Aaron, 4 N. J. L. 231; S. v. Fowler, '"Crosby v. P., 137 111. 341, 27 N. 52 Iowa 103, 2 N. W. 983; Underbill B. 49; 4 Bl. Com. 26; 1 Hale P. C. Cr. Bv., § 20; 4 Bl. Com. 23. 32; S. v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483, 3 Am. C. ^'i Bl. Com. 23; 1 Hale P. C. 27; R. 166; Hopt v. Utah, 104 U. S. 631, P. v. Townsend, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 479. 4 Am. C. R. 367; Sl^annahan v. Com., •'Campbell v. P., 16 111. 19; Bpps 8 Bush (Ky.) 463, 1 Green C. R. 373; V. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. 491, 5 Am. P. v. Miller, 114 Cal. 10, 45 Pac. C. R. 530; S. v. Westfall, 49 Iowa 986; Conley v. Com., 98 Ky. 125, 328, 3 Am. C. R. 349; P. v. Woody, 17 Ky. L. 678, 32 S. W. 285; Colee 45 Cal. 289, 2 Green C. R. 420. v. S., 75 Ind. 511; Upstone v. P., 109 "Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 188, 111. 178; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 160; 37 N. B. 244; S. v. Beaudet, 53 Conn. Rex v. Carroll, 7 C. & P. 145; Under- 536, 4 Atl. 237, 7 Am. C. R. 88; bill Cr. Ev., § 164; S. v. West, 157 S. V. Davis, 77 N. C. 483; Crookbam Mo. 309, 57 S. W. 1071. V. S., 5 W. Va. 510; 2 Bisb. Cr. "S. v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483, 3 Am. C. Proc, § 623; 1 McClain Cr. L., R. 165. § 404; P. V. Mitcbel, 100 Cal. 328, 34 "Rafferty v. P., 66 111. 124; Mc- Pac. 698; Greenfield v. P., 85 N. Y. Intyre v. P., 38 111. 520; P. v. Rogers. 618 hughes' criminal law. § 2424 § 2424. Drunkenness, competent to disprove specific intent. — Where a particular specific intent is charged and forms the gist of the offense, any cause which deprives the defendant of the mental ca- pacity to form such intent will be a defense to the graver crime, and under this rule, drunkenness is competent evidence.^' Where a de- liberate intent to take life is an essential element of one of the de- grees of homicide, intoxication is admissible, not as an excuse for crime, nor in mitigation of punishment, but as tending to show that the less, and not the greater, offense was in fact committed.^° § 2425. Drunkenness, rendering one helpless. — "If a man, by vol- untary drunkenness, render himself incapable of walking for a limited time, it is just as competent evidence to show he did not walk during the time he was incapable, as though he had been rendered incapable by paralysis of his limbs from some cause over which he had no con- trol. The cause of the incapacity is immaterial ; the material question is, was he, in fact, incapable of doing the acts charged ?"^" § 2426. Drunkenness — As res gestae. — It is competent to prove that the accused was drunk at the time of the alleged crime as a part of the res gestae.^'^ Akticlb VI. Detective — When Defense. § 2427. Decoy letters — Detective exposing criminals. — That the accused was detected in his criminal acts by means of "decoy" letters, 18 N. Y. 27. See Greenl. Ev., § 148; v. S., 43 Ohio St. 332, 1 N. B. 22; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.) Lancaster v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 575, 466. 3 Am. C. R. 160 (see note); Bolzer "Crosby v. P., 137 111. 342, 27 N. v. P., 129 111. 121, 21 N. B. 818; 3 E. 49; Warner v. S., 56 N. J. L. 686, Greenl. Ev., § 6; Underbill Cr. Ev., 9 Am. C. R. 529, 29 Atl. 505; Hopt § 166; Jenkins v. S., 93 Ga. 1, 18 v. Utah, 104 U. S. 631, 4 Am. C. R. S. E. 992; Aszman v, S., 123 Ind. 367; Pigman v. S., 14 Ohio 555; 347, 24 N. B. 123; Chatham v. S., Mooney v. S., 33 Ala. 419; S. v. 92 Ala. 47, 9 So. 607. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154; Schwabacher " S. v. Johnson, 40 Conn. 136, 2 V. P., 165 111. 629, 46 N. B. 809; Com. Green C. R. 491; Shannahan v. Com., V. Hagenlock, 140 Mass. 125, 3 N. E. 8 Bush (Ky.) 463; Roberts v. P., 19 36; S. v. Fiske, 63 Conn. 388, 28 Mich. 401; S. v. Garvey, 11 Minn. Atl. 572; Jones v. Com., 75 Pa. St. 154; Keenan v. Com., 44 Pa. St. 55; 403; Com. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412; Pigman v. S., 14 Ohio 555; S. v. Roberts v. P., 19 Mich. 401; P. v. Faino, 1 Marv. (Del.) 492, 41 Atl. Walker, 38 Mich. 156; P. v. Young, 134. 102 Cal. 411, 36 Pac. 770; Engle- ^"Ingalls v. S., 48 Wis. 647, 4 N. hardt v. S., 88 Ala. 100, 7 So. 154; W. 785. Kerr Homicide, § 209, p. 240; Cllne =' Rafferty v. P., 66 111. 124. § 2428 DEFENSES. 619 is no defeBse.^^ That the accused was a detective and acted with others in the commission of a criminal offense for the purpose of ex- posing such others, is a good defense.^^ Article VII. Owner Consenting to Act. § 2428. Owner consents to offense. — A detective, hy previous ar- rangements, entered the building with the consent of the owner, and took money from the owner's safe, with no intent to steal it, but with the intention to entrap others whom he had induced to join him in the enterprise, in accordance with such previous arrangements. Held to be no criminal offense.^* Where one arranges to have a crime com- mitted against his property, or himself, and knows that an attempt is to be made to encourage others to commit the act by one acting in concert with such owner, it is not a crime. ^^ The crime of larceny is not committed when the owner's property is taken with his consent, however guilty may be the purpose of the person taking, as .where a detective, with the consent of the owner, by previous arrangement, seeks to entrap the taker.^* Article VIII. Ignorance oe Law. § 2429. Ignorance of law no defense. — "Ignorance of the law excuses no one," and is no defense to a criminal charge.^'' The legal '^Goode V. U. S., 159 U. S. 666, 16 v. S., 3 Tex. App. 156, 30 Am. R. S. Ct. 136, 10 Am. C. R. 263; Grimm 126; S. v. Hull, 33 Or. 56, 54 Pac. v; U. S., 156 U. S. 604, 15 S. Ct. 159; P. v. Collins, 53 Cal. 185; Kemp 470. V. S., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 320. '* Price V. P., 109 111. 113; Aldrich "^^ Connor v. P., 18 Colo. 373, 33 V. P., 101 111. 19, 9 Am. C. R. 90; Pac. 159; Williams v. S., 55 Ga. 395; Backenstoe v. S., 19 Ohio C. C. 568, Kemp v. S., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 10 Ohio C. D. 688; S. v. McKean, 36 320; Rex v. McDaniel, Foster 121. Iowa 343, 2 Green C. R. 635; Com. See "Rohbery;" "Larceny;" "Bm- V. Hollister, 157 Pa. St. 13, 27 Atl. bezzlement." 386; P. V. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137; Un- ^' Miles v. U. S., 103 U. S. 304; U. derhill Cr. Ev., § 69. S. v. Anthony, 11 Blatchf. (C. C.) "Love V. P., 160 111. 508, 43 N. B. 200; Dodd v. S., 18 Ind. 56; P. v. 710; Strait v. S., 77 Miss. 693, 27 Cook, 39 Mich. 236; P. v. Powell, 63 So. 617; Allen v. S., 40 Ala. 334; N. Y. 88; Hoover v. S., 59 Ala. 57; 2 East P. C, eh. 16, § 111; Williams Com. v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117; v. S., 55 Ga. 391. But see S. v. Reg. v. Downes, 13 Cox C. C. Ill; Jansen, 22 Kan. 498. Gardner v. P., 62 N. Y. 299; Jellico '"Love V. P., 160 111. 508, 43 N. Coal Mining Co. v. Com., 96 Ky. E. 710; P. V. McCord, 76 Mich. 200, 373, 16 Ky. L. 463, 29 S. W. 26; P. 8 Am. C. R. 121, 42 N. W. 1106; S. v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 37 Pac. V. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76, 16 S. W. 514; 799; S. v. Poster (R. I.), 46 Atl. 833, Allen V. S., 40 Ala. 334. See Speiden 50 L. R. A. 339. 620 hughes' criminal law. § 2430 maxim, "Ignorantia legis neminem excusat" in its application to the law of crimes, is subject, as it is sometimes in respect to civil rights, to certain important exceptions. Where the act done is malum in se, or where the law is well-settled and plain, the maxim, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one," in its rigor, will be applied; but where the law is not settled, or is obscure, and where the guilty intention, being a necessary constituent of the ofEense, is dependent on the knowledge of the law, this rule, if enforced, would be misapplied.^* Article IX. Insanity as Defense. § 2430. Insanity as defense — Degree. — To establish a defense on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the alleged crime the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.^° § 2431. Insanity after committing offense. — "If a man in his sound memory commit a capital ofEense, and before arraignment for it be- comes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it, because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought."^" § 2432. Insanity — Preliminary inquiry. — The accused is placed on trial for the crime with which he is charged, and the question of his insanity being put in issue, it becomes material to the case — even though a jury had been impaneled to try the question and disagreed as to his sanity.^^ But the court must have reasonable grounds to doubt the sanity of the person about to be tried for a felony before a jury will be impaneled to inquire into his mental condition.^^ A man can not plead or be tried, convicted or sentenced while in a state of insanity, and when objection to proceeding with the trial is =" Cutter V. S., 36 N. J. L. 125, 2 =»4 Bl. Com. 24; 1 Hale P. C. 34; Green C. R. 590; Com. v. Bradford, 2 Bish. Cr. Proc, 666. 9 Mete. (Mass.) 268; Rex v. Hall, 3 '^ French v. S., 85 Wis. 407, 55 C. & P. 409; Com. v. Shed, 1 Mass. N. W. 566; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 166. 228; 3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 20, 21; S. v. ^ S. v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 9 Brown, 38 Kan. 390, 16 Pac. 259, 8 Am. C. R. 633, 15 S. E3. 982, citing Am. C. R. 171. Wehber v. Com., 119 Pa. St. 223, 13 =°Mackin v. S., 59 N.J. L. 495, 36 Atl. 427; Jones v. S., 13 Ala. 157; Atl. 1040; Plake v. S., 121 Ind. 433, S. v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 483. Contra, 23 N. E. 273; P. v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. Guagando v. S., 41 Tex. 626. 398, 406, 34 N. E. 275. § 2433 DEFENSES. 621 made, on that account, whether raised orally or otherwise, the evi- dence must be received and the issue must in some way be disposed of before proceeding with the trial.^^ § 2433. Insanity — Special plea. — Counsel conducting the defense of one charged with crime may file a special plea alleging that the accused is insane at the time of the trial ; and when such plea is filed it becomes the duty of the court to cause the issue thus made to first be tried by a special jury, and if the" plea is found to be true an order should be entered committing the accused to the insane asylum.^* § 2434. Insanity — Weight of evidence. — An examination of a large number of decisions of the courts of different states, and courts of England, shows that there are three distinct and well-defined theories on the subject of insanity as a defense : First, that the proof must satisfy the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the act ; second, that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show by a fair pre- ponderance of evidence that he was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and consequently insane ; third, that if, upon the whole of the evidence by the prosecution and defense, there is a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused, he should be acquitted.^^ § 2435. Insanity — Degree, preponderance required. — The ad- judged cases in this country present a vast weight of authority favor- able to the doctrine that insanity is a defense which must be estab- lished to the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evi- dence ; and a reasonable doubt of the defendant's sanity, raised by all the evidence, does not authorize an acquittal.^" "S. V. Reed, 41 La. 582, 7 So. 271, 10 Am. C. R. 585, 594; Parsons 132; 4 Bl. Com. 25. v. S., 81 Ala. 577, 7 Am. C. R. 266, "Carr v. S., 96 Ga. 284, 22 S. E. 2 So. 854; Com. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. 570, 10 Am. C. R. 330. See 4 Bl. St. 289, 22 Atl. 464; Coyle v. Com., Com. 25. 100 Pa. St. 573, 4 Cr. L. Mag. 76; ''S. v. Scott, 49 La. 253, 10 Am. Carlisle v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. C. R. 591, 21 So. 271. Many cases 365. See P. v. Nino, 149 N. Y. 317, are cited in illustration of the tiree 43 N. E. 853; King v. S., 74 Miss. theories; and see also note at the 576, 21 So. 235; S. v. Larkins foot of S. V, Scott, 10 Am. C. R. (Idaho), 47 Pac. 945; S. v. Cole, 2 601. Pen. (Del.) 344, 45 Atl. 391; Graves =»S. v. Scott, 49 La. 253, 21 So. v. S., 45 N. J. L. 203, 4 Am. C. R. 622 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. §2436 § 2436. Insanity — Preponderance not required. — ^But there are numerous eases by courts of high authority holding that where a prima facie case is made out against a defendant, he is never bound to rebut it by a preponderance of the evidence of insanity. He is only required to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The burden of proof is al- ways upon the state, and never shifts from the state to the defendant. The making out of a prima facie case against the defendant does not shift the burden of proof.^' § 2437. Sanity is presumed — Exception to rule. — The law pre- sumes every man to be sane until the contrary is shown. But this legal presumption may be oversome by evidence from either side tend- ing to prove insanity of the accused which is sufficient to raise a rea- sonable doubt of his sanity at the time of the commission of the act. Then the burden shifts.*' The presumption of sanity inheres at every stage of the trial until insanity is made to appear by the evi- dence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of sanity at the time of the act.*" After a person has been found insane by inquest, properly 387, 390; Coates v. S., 50 Ark. 330, 7 S. W. 304, 7 Am. C. R. 585; S. v. Smith, 53 Mo. 267, 2 Green C. R. 599; P. V. Wilson, 49 Cal. 13, 1 Am. C. R. 358; Ortwein v. Com., 76 Pa. St. 414, 1 Am. C. R. 298. ='S. v. Crawford, 11 Kan. 32, 2 Green C. R. 642-3; P. v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 64; Chase v. P., 40 111. 353; P. V. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, 58 Pac. 918. See also P. v. McCarthy, 115 Cal. 255, 46 Pac. 1073; S. v. Schaef- er, 116 Mo. 96, 22 S. W. 447; Ford V. S., 73 Miss. 734, 19 So. 665; Walker v. P., 88 N. Y. 81, 88; Smith V. Com., 1 Duv. (Ky.) 224, 228; P. V. Holmes, 111 Mich. 364, 69 N. W. 501; Armstrong v. S., 30 Pla. 170, 204, 11 So. 618; S. v. Davis, 109 N. C. 780, 14 S. B. 55; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 157. See cases cited under § 2437, in notes 38 and 40. »' Dacey v. P., 116 111. 572, 6 N. E. 165; Chase v. P., 40 111. 353; Montag V. P., 141 111. 80, 30 N. B. 337; Cun- ningham v. S., 56 Miss. 269; Maas v. Ter. (Okl., 1901), 63 Pac. 960; P. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9; O'Connell v. P., 87 N. Y. 377; S. v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224; Hopps v. P., 31 111. 394; Langdon v. P., 133 111. 406, 24 N. E. 874; Dunn v. P., 109 111. 635; Meyer v. P., 156 111. 129, 40 N. B. 490; Brotherton v. P., 75 N. Y. 159, 3 Am. C. R. 219; Com. v. Pomeroy, 117 Mass. 143; Cunningham v. S., 56 Miss. 269; Plake v. S., 121 Ind. 433, 23 N. E. 273; S. v. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205, 4 Pac. 159; Ballard v. S., 19 Neb. 609, 28 N. W. 271; S. v. Craw- ford, 11 Kan? 32, 2 Green C. R. 641; Davis V. U. S., 160 U. S. 469, 16 S. Ct. 353; Dove v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 348, 1 Green C. R. 764, 769; P. v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398, 34 N. B. 275; Keener v. S., 97 Ga. 388, 24 S. B. 28; P. V. McCarthy, 115 Cal. 255, 46 Pac. 1073; S. V. Scott, 49 La. 253, 21 So. 271; S. V. Wright, 134 Mo. 404, 35 S. W. 1145; S. V. Stickley, 41 Iowa 232, 237; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 157. "Dacey v. P., 116 111. 572, 6 N. E. 165; Langdon v. P., 133 111. 406, 24 N. E. 874; S. v. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205, 4 Pac. 159, 5 Am. C. R. 315; Dove v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 348, 1 Green C. R. 764; Com. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. St. 289, 22 Atl. 464; S. v. Scott, 49 La. 253, 21 So. 271, 10 Am. C. R. 586; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 5. See also O'Connell v. P., 87 N. Y. 377; Boiling V. S., 54 Ark. 588, 602, 16 S. W. 658. § 2438 DEFENSES. 623 held, the presumption of insanity ma}' continue until it is rebutted by evidence of sanity.*^ But to this rule there are exceptions and quali- fications. It is not sufficient that there be proof of a temporary or spasmodic mania to come within the rule.*^ § 2438. Insanity — "Right and wrong" test. — "Where reason and judgment were not overcome, but the person retained the power to choose between right and wrong as to the particular act done, he could not escape responsibility for his acts under the plea of insanity." Where a man knows that it is wrong to do a certain act and possesses the power of mind to do or not to do the act, he should be held re- sponsible.** Where insanity is the defense to a criminal charge the inquiry is always to be reduced to the single question of the capacity of the accused to discriminate between right and wrong at the time of the alleged criminal act.** The court, in considering insanity as a defense, in Parsons v. State, hold the true test of legal responsibility to be, "not only the knowledge of good and evil, but the power to choose the one and refrain from the other."*" §2439. Insanity — ^Nature or quality. — Insanity must be of such a degree as to create an uncontrollable impulse to do the act charged, by overriding the reason and judgment and obliterating the sense of right as to the particular act done, and depriving the accused of the power of choosing between them.*" "Every melancholy or hypoehron- driae fit does not deprive a man of the capacity of discerning right from wrong, which is necessary to form a legal excuse. If a real luna- "Langdon v. P., 133 111. 404, 24 Am. C. R. 331; S. v. Mowry, 37 Kan. N. E. 874; Tltcomb v. Vantyle, 84 369, 15 Pac. 282; P. v. Carpenter, 111. 371; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 42; 2 Bish. 102 N. ¥. 238, 6 N. E. 584; S. v. Cr. Proc, § 674; 1 Whar. Cr. L., § 63; Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 4 S. W. 931; P. S. v. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304; S. v. Red- v. Holn, 62 Cal. 120; S. v. Law- dick, 7 Kan. 143. rence, 57 Me. 577. See Mangrum v. "S. V. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 5 S. W. Com., 19 Ky. L. 94, 39 S. W. 703; 889; P. V. Francis, 38 Cal. 183; 1 Com. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. St. 289, 22 Whar. Cr. L., § 63; S. v. Spencer, 21 Atl. 464; S. v. Hockett, 70 Iowa 442, N. J. L. 196; P. V. Lane, 101 Cal. 30 N. W. 742. Contra, Parsons v. S., 513, 36 Pac. 16. 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, 7 Am. C. R. «Dunn V. P., 109 111. 644; Flana- 266. gan V. P., 52 N. Y. 467, 1 Green C. R. « Parsons v. S., 81 Ala. 577, 7 Am. 378. C. R. 266, 2 So. 854, citing Spann v. " S. V. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S., 47 Ga. 553, 1 Green C. R. 391, 7 S. B. 982, 9 Am. C. R. 638; Carr Cr. L. Mag. 567, 600. V. S., 96 Ga. 284, 22 S. B. 570, 10 "Hopps v. P., 31 111. 391; Lilly v. 624 hughes' criminal law. § 2440 tic kills himself in a lucid interval, he is felo de se as much as another man."" § 2440. Insanity from drink. — The fact that the insanity, amount- ing to a mental disease, was induced or brought about by the use of in- toxicating liquors, will make it none the less a defense, in criminal § 2441. Deaf mute. — A deaf mute was tried for felony and was found guilty. The Jury were requested and directed to determine whether in their opinion the prisoner was capable of understanding and had understood the nature of the proceedings; and the finding was that the defendant was not capable and did not understand such proceedings. Held that no conviction could be had, but that the de- fendant must be detained as an insane person.** Article X. Self-Defense. §2442. Self-defense— What constitutes.— "If the defendant was pursued or assaulted by the deceased in such a way as to induce in him a reasonable and well-grounded belief that he was actually in danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm, when acting under the influence of such apprehension, he was justified in defending him- self, whether the danger was real or only apparent."'" P., 148 111. 473, 36 N. E. 95; Dacey P., 108 111. 519; Panton v. P., 114 V. P., 116 111. 572, 6 N. E. 165; Meyer 111. 505, 2 N. E. 411; Walker v. P., V. P., 156 111. 129, 40 N. E. 490; U. 133 111. 115, 24 N. E. 424; Allen v. S. V. Faulkner, 35 Fed. 731. P., 77 111. 487; Bnrlght v. P., 155 "4 Bl. Com. 190; P. v. Hubert, 119 111. 35, 39 N. E. 561; S. v. Zeigler. Cal. 216, 51 Pac. 329. 40 W. Va. 593, 21 S. E. 763, 10 Am. "Abbott's Cr. Brief, § 775, citing C. R. 473; S. v. Evans, 33 W. Va. P. V. Blake, 65 Cal. 275, 4 Pac. 1; 422, 10 S. E. 792; Cofeman v. Com., P. v. O'Connell, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 10 Bush (Ky.) 495, 1 Am. C. R. 294; 436; Erwin v. S., 10 Tex. App. 700. Frank v. S., 94 Wis. 211, 68 N. W. See also P. v. Fellows, 122 Cal. 233, 657; Walker v. S., 97 Ga. 350, 23 54 Pac. 830. See Cannon v. S. (Tex. S. B. 992; Elliott v. P., 22 Colo. 466, Cr.), 56 S. W. 351 (temporary). 45 Pac. 404; Ingram v. S., 62 Miss. "Queen v. Berry, L. R. 1. Q. B. 142; King v. S. (Miss.), 23 So. 766; D. 447, 3 Am. C. R. 428; Rex v. Hensen v. S., 120 Ala. 316, 25 So. Dyson, 7 C. & P. 305; Reg. v. Pritch- 23; S. v. Pennington, 146 Mo. 27, ard, 7 C. & P. 303. 47 S. W. 799; S. v. Gentry, 125 N. C. ■» Campbell v. P., 16 111. 17; Stein- 733, 34 S. E. 706; McCrory v. S. meyer v. P., 95 111. 389; Schnler v. (Miss.), 25 So. 671; Bonardo v. P., P., 23 111. 17; Steiner v. P., 187 111. 182 111. 411, 55 N. E. 519; S. v. Sad- 245, 58 N. B. 383; Roach v. P., 77 ler, 51 La. 1397, 26 So. 390; S. v. 111. 25; Maher v. P., 24 111. 242; Sloan, 22 Mont. 293, 56 Pac. 364. See Gainey v. P., 97 111. 277; Kinney v. also Erwin v. S., 29 Ohio St. 186, § 2443 DEFENSES. 625 § 2443. Self-defense — ^Danger apparent. — While the danger at the time the mortal blow was given need not be real, yet it nnist be ap- parently imminent, urgent and pressing to justify killing the assail- ant. A mere belief of danger is not sufHeient.'^ In self-defense the accused is only required to prove that the killing was apparently aeces- sary and not "absolutely necessary."'^ Where the defense is self- defense, it is for the jury, and not the prisoner, to judge of the reason- able grounds for apprehension as to the danger or threatened danger .°* § 2444. Provoking quarrel, — The defendant has not the right to provoke a quarrel and take advantage of it, and then justify the homicide on the grounds of self-defense.°* The law will not permit a person to follow up his enemy, and, if an encounter ensue, justify the killing as being done in self-defense. The accused must be wholly free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.®' § 2445. Flying from assailant. — A man who is without fault is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise malicious- ly seeks to take his life or do him enormous bodily harm.®" The an- cient doctrine as to the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far 'as he can, before he is justified in repelling force by force, has been greatly modified in this country, and has with us a much narrower application than formerly. Indeed, the tendency of the American 2 Am. C. R. 257; 3 Greenl. Bv., § 8; "Adams v. P., 47 111. 379; Kinney 1 Hale P. C. 478. v. P., 108 111. 527; S. v. Campbell, "Price V. P., 131 111. 234, 23 N. 107 N. C. 948, 12 S. B. 441; Logsdon E. 639; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 303; Kil- v. Com., 19 Ky. L. 413, 40 S. W. 775; gore V. S., 124 Ala. 24, 27 So. 4; S. v. Pennington, 146 Mo. 27, 47 S. Alvarez v. S., 41 Pla. 532, 27 So. W. 799; S. v. Ballou, 20 R. I. 607, 40; P. V. Kennedy, 159 N. Y. 346, 54 40 Atl. 861; S. v.' Adler, 146 Mo. 18, N. E. 51; Nabors v. S., 120 Ala. 47 S. W. 794; Teague v. S., 120 Ala. 323, 25 So. 529 (belief). 309, 25 So. 209; S. v. Vaughan, 141 ""Enright v. P., 155 111. 35, 39 N. Mo. 514, 42 S. W. 1080; Roberson E. 561; Ingram v. S., 62 Miss. 142, v. S., 53 Ark. 516, 14 S. W. 902. 5 Am. C. R. 485; S. v. Palmer, 88 But see Patterson v. S., 75 Miss. Mo. 568. See McCoy v. P., 175 111. 670, 23 So. 647. 230, 51 N. E. 777. "'Hughes v. P., 116 111. 335, 6 N. '"2 Thomp. Trials, § 2160, citing B. 55; Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, S.'v. Harris, 1 Jones L. (N. C.) 190, 21 So. 214; Hughes v. S., 117 Ala. Horr. & Thomp. Cas. Self Def. 276; 25, 23 So. 677; Welch v. S., 124 Ala. Cotton V. S., 31 Miss. 504, Horr. & 41, 27 So. 307; Jackson v. Com. Thomp. Cas. Self. Def. 310; P. v. (Va.), 36 S. E. 487; Swanner v. S. McLeod, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 377, Horr. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. W. 72. 6 Thomp. Cas. Self Def. 784; S. v. ""Erwin v. S., 29 Ohio St. 186, 2 Bohan, 19 Kan. 28; Davis v. P., 88 Am. C. R. 261 (common law authori- 111. 350; S. V. Abarr, 39 Iowa 185. ties reviewed); S. v. Warner, 100 See "Homicide." Iowa 260, 69 N. W. 546. hughes' c. l. — 40 626 hughes' criminal law. § 2446 mind seems to be very thoroughly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save human life, and that tendency is well illustrated by the recent decisions of our courts, bearing on the general subject of the right of self-defense.^^ But in some jurisdictions the ancient doc- trine prevails that the defendant is bound to decline the combat in good faith, and to use all means for his safety that reasonable men would adopt under similar circumstances.^^ But this ancient doctrine does not apply to an officer whose duty is to preserve the peace : he is not required to decline a combat when resisted in the discharge of his duty.^^a § 2446. Ketreat — When unnecessary. — If a man without fault is violently assaulted in his own home by a person who enters the same with force or surprise, he, in resisting such assaults in the necessary defense of his person or habitation, is not bound to retreat.^* "In the case of justifiable self-defense, the injured party may repel force with force in defense of his person, habitation or property against one who manifestly intendeth and endeavoreth, with violence or surprise, to commit a known felony upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary till he findeth himself out of danger, and if, in a conflict between them, he happeneth to kill, such killing is justiflable.""" When a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be (in his own house or on his own premises), is violently assaulted, he is not bound to retreat, but may stand his ground in defending himself.'^ § 2447. Previous threats — Threat explained. — Previous threats, or «ven acts of hostility, however violent, will not of themselves excuse '"Runyan v. S., 57 Ind. 80, 26 Am. So. 179, 7 Am. C. R. 447; S. v. Reed, H. 52, 2 Am. C. R. 351; S. v. Huds- 154 Mo. 122, 55 S. W. 278; Kerr peth, 150 Mo. 12, 51 S. W. 483; Homicide, §§ 181, 184; S. v. Middle- Palmer V. S. (Wye, 1900), 59 Pac. ham, 62 Iowa 150, 17 N. W. 446; S. 793. See La Rue v. S., 64 Ark. 144, v. Scheele, 57 Conn. 307, 18 Atl. 256; 41 S. W. 53; 4 Bl. Com. 185. S. v. Peacock, 40 Ohio St. 333; S. v. *' Davison v. P., 90 111. 231; S. v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308. Spears, 46 La. 1524, 16 So. 467, 9 °° Foster C. C, ch. 3, p. 273 (cited Am. C. R. 624; S. v. Rheams, 34 in Erwin v. S., 29 Ohio St. 186, 2 Minn. 18, 24 N. W. 302, 6 Am. C. R. Am. C. R. 258); P. v. Lewis, 117 Cal. 540; 4 Bl. Com. 185; S. v. Warren, 186, 48 Pac. 1088; Foster C. C. 273. 1 Marv. (Del.) 487, 41 Atl. 190. "Bahe Beard v. U. S., 158 U. S. "^aLynn v. P., 170 111. 536, 48 N. 550, 15 S. Ct. 962, 9 Am. C. R. 332- B. 964. 336; P. v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, "1 Hale P. C. 486; Runyan v. S., 50 Pac. 405; S. v. Robertson, 50 La. 57 Ind. 80, 26 Am. R. 52, 2 Am. C. R. 92, 23 So. 9; Foster v. Ter. (Ariz., 320; Williams v. S., 81 Ala. 1, 1 1899), 56 Pac. 738. § 2448 DEFENSES. 627 the slayer, but there must be some words or overt acts at the time clearly indicative of a present purpose to do the injury.'* That the defendant had been previously attacked by the deceased, and had had the deceased bound over to keep the peace, is competent, not for the purpose of excusing the subsequent conduct of the defendant, in shoot- ing the deceased, but as tending to explain the threat made by the defendant and as tending to confirm the nature and character of those threats.'* § 2448. Declining further struggle. — Although, the defendant may have originally been in the wrong and inflicted a serious injury on his antagonist, yet if he in good faith declines any further struggle and withdraws and makes known to his adversary his intention to so with- draw, he will then have the right to act in self-defense.'^ § 2449. Self-defense — Not bound to wait — ^Enemy. — Where a per- son is pursued or assaulted by another in such a way as to induce in him a reasonable and well-grounded belief that he is actually in dan- ger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm, he need not wait until his adversary gets advantage over him, in defending himself from the threatened attack." When a man's life has been repeatedly threatened by a desperate and lawless enemy, when an actual attempt has been made to assassinate him, and the declaration has been made by such enemy that he intended to kill him on sight, he has the right to consider himself in imminent peril on meeting such enemy, and is not obliged to wait until he is actually assailed before acting in self- defense." Article XI. Defending Others. § 2450. Defending others. — The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is, that it is sacred for the protection of one's per- "Barnards v. S., 88 Tenn. 183, 12 543, 17 S. W. 990; Wall v. S., 51 Ind. S. W. 431; Rippy v. S., 2 Head 453; S. v. Vaughan, 141 Mo. 514, 42 (Tenn.) 218; Ewing v. S. (Tex. Cr.), S. W. 1080; Padgett v. S., 40 Fla. 42 S. W. 381; S. v. Albright, 144 Mo. 451, 24 So. 145. €38, 46 S. "W. 620; S. v. Hickey, 50 "'S. v. Matthews, 148 Mo. 185, 49 La. 600, 23 So. 504. S. W. 1085; McCrory v. S. (Miss., "Bolzer v. P., 129 111. 122, 21 N. 1899), 25 So. 671; Bohannon v. Com., E. 818. See Underbill Cr. Ev., § 326. 8 Bush (Ky.) 481, 1 Green C. R. 617. " P. V. Button, 106 Cal. 628, 39 " Bohannon v. Com., 8 Bush (Ky.) Pac. 1073; 4 Bl. Com. 184; 3 Greenl. 481, 1 Green C. R. 617. Ev., § 116; S. V. Talmage, 107 Mo. 628 hughes' criminal law. § 2451 eon and his family. An assault on the house can be regarded as an as- sault on the person only in ease the purpose of such assault be injury to the person of the occupant or members of his family, and in order to accomplish this the assailant attacks the castle in order to reach the inmates. In this view, it is settled in such case, the inmate need not flee from his house in order to escape injury, but may meet him at the threshold and prevent him from breaking in by any means rendered necessary, the same as in the necessary defense of his person."* On the same grounds that one may kill his assailant in self-defense, he will be justified in defending another, as a father defending his son or daughter from a deadly assault.** Article XII. Defending Habitation. § 2451. Defending habitation. — A man's house is his castle, and he may defend it even to the taking of life, if necessary, or apparently necessary, to prevent forcible entrance against his will.'" Where the habitation of the accused was attacked in the night time by the de- ceased and others, in a wanton, riotous and violent manner, by break- ing the door and windows while the accused was therein, in the peace of the people, he had a right to defend his habitation from such as- saults, even to the taking of life.^^ Article XIII. Accident as Defense. § 2452. Accident, a defense. — If an assault was made upon the accused which he did not provoke, and he shot at his assailant, but missed him and killed a bystander, no guilt would attach if the as- sault upon him was such as would have justified him in killing his assailant. The killing would be a misadventure.'" "»S. V. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 1 note. Defense of Habitation, 8 Am. Green C. R. 498. C. R. 564. ""Campbell v. Com., 88 Ky. 402, 10 "Brown v. P., 39 111. 408. See S. Ky. L. 975, 11 S. W. 290; Utterback v. Scheele, 57 Conn. 307, 18 Atl. 256, v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1515, 49 S. "W. 479; 8 Am. C. R. 552, 556. S. V. Westfall, 49 Iowa 328, 3 Am. " Butler v. S., 92 Ga. 601, 19 S. B. C. R. 349; S. v. Melton, 102 Mo. 683, 51; Reg. v. Knock, 14 Cox C. C. 1; 15 S. W. 139; West v. S., 59 Ind. 113; Hart v. Com., 85 Ky. 77, 8 Ky. L. Alberty v. U. S., 162 U. S. 499, 16 419, 2 S. W. 673. See "Homicide;" S. Ct. 864; P. V. Cook, 39 Mich. 236; 4 Bl. Com. 27, 181,; Perry v. S. (Tex. 3 Greenl. Ev., § 116; 4 Bl. Com. 186. Cr.), 45 S. W. 566. "Davison v. P., 90 IIL 229. See § 2453 DEFENSES. 629 § 2453. Accident — ^When, and when not. — Where a man is doing a; lawful act, and, without intention of hurt, unfortunately kills an- other, as when a man is at work with a hatchet, and the head flies off and kills a bystander, or where a person qualified to keep a gun is shooting at a mark, and undesignedly kills a man, the effect is merely accidental, for the act is lawful.'^* If one intends to do another fel- ony, and undesignedly kills a man, this is murder. Thus, if one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder, because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other.'* Article XIV. Suicide as Defense. § 2454. Suicide as a defense. — ^For the purpose of showing that the deceased had committed suicide of her own accord, and without participation by him, the prisoner called a witness with whom the deceased had resided some six years prior to her death, and offered to prove by the witness that the deceased, while living with the wit- ness, was of a melancholy disposition of mind and was predisposed to, and had threatened to commit suicide. Held competent as a defense, ihough remote. The lapse of time should go merely to the weight And not to the competency of the testimony.'"' Article XV. Taking One's Own Property. § 2455. Taking or reclaiming one's own. — A person, by taking property from another under the hona fide belief that it is his own property, can not be convicted of robbery, even though he seized it violently.'® If one's property be wrongfully held by another, he may retake it from the person so wrongfully taking it, using no more than reasonable force in doing so; and what is reasonable force is a ques- iion of fact for the jury." "4 Bl. Com. 182; 3 Greenl. Ev., Hughes, 11 Utah 100, 39 Pac. 492; I 116. Crawford v. S., 90 Ga. 701, 17 S. B. " 4 Bl. Com. 201. 628; S. v. Holly way, 41 Iowa 200. '"Blackburn v. S., 23 Ohio St. See P. v. Slayton (Mich.), 82 N. W. 146, 2 Green C. R. 534. See 3 Greenl. 205. Ev., § 134; Hall v. S., 132 Ind. 317, " Com. v. Donahue, 148 Mass. 529, 325, 31 N. E. 536; Boyd v. S., 14 Lea 20 N. E. 171, 8 Am. C. R. 45; S. v. (Tenn.) 161; TJnderhill Cr. Ev., Elliot, 11 N. H. 540, 545. See also, § 312. Brown v. S., 28 Ark. 126; Rex v. "Brown v. S., 28 Ark. 126; Rex Hall, 3 C. & P. 409; Bray v. S., 41 T. Hall, 3 C. & P. 409; S. v. Brown, Tex. 204; Neely v. S., 8 Tex. App. 104 Mo. 365, 16 S. W. 406; P. v. 64. 630 hughes' criminal law. § 2456 § 2456. Compelled to do an act. — "When the defendant sets up that he acted under necessity, as under command of a superior officer, in time of war, or under compulsion of any kind, the burden is on him in such eases to prove the defense he sets up, and he must estab- lish this by a preponderance of proof, it being an extrinsic defense.'"* § 3457. Corporation — ^When guilty. — Corporations can not be in- dicted for offenses which derive their criminality from evil intention,, or which consist in a violation of those social duties which appertain to men and subjects; they can not be guilty of treason or felony, of perjury or offenses against the person.''* Article XVI. Wife Compelled by Husband. § 2458. Wife compelled by husband. — The doctrine of the common law is that, by marriage, the husband and wife become one person in law; that she is under his protection, influence, power and authority. This condition of the wife is designated by the expressive term cover- ture. One effect of it is, as .a general rule, though subject to many exceptions, to excuse her from punishment for many crimes com- mitted by her in the presence of her husband, on the ground that she acted under his compulsion. He alone is responsible for such crimes.^" Article XVII. Mutual Combat. §2459. Mutual combat. — "In cases of mutual combat both par- ties are the aggressors, and if one is killed it will be manslaughter, at least, unless the survivor can prove that before the mortal stroke was given he refused any further combat, and retreated as far as he could with safety, and that he killed his adversary from necessity to avoid his own destruction, or great bodily harm to him."'^ Article XVIII. Statute Repealed. § 2460. Statute repealed, a defense. — Ho principle is better settled than that a conviction can not be had after the repeal of a law which "Kent V. P., 8 Colo. 563, 5 Am. ""Com. v. "Wood, 97 Mass. 225; C. R. 423, 9 Pac. 852; Com. V. Boyer, Com. v. Barry, 115 Mass. 146, 2 7 Allen (Mass.) 306; S. v. Morphy, Green C. R. 285; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 7; 33 Iowa 270. 4 Bl. Com. 28. ^ Cumberland Canal v. Portland, " S. v. Spears, 46 La. 1524, 9 Am. 56 Me. 77; Com. v. Proprietors, 2 C. R. 624, 16 So. 467. Gray (Mass.) 345. § 2461 DEFENSES. 631 has been violated, unless the repealing act contains a provision for that purpose.'^ Article XIX. Mere Presence^ No Offense. § 2461. Mere presence, no offense. — The fact that a person is pres- ent at the time an offense is committed, and knows it is to be com- mitted, does not connect him with the crime. The evidence must show that such person aided or in some manner participated in the commission of the crime before he can be held responsible.*' Article XX. Statute of Limitations. § 2462. Statute of limitations. — The statute of limitations begins to run when an offense is actually committed, and not at some later time ; as, for example, when a public officer embezzles and converts to his own use money entrusted to him by virtue of his office, the statute be- gins to run at the time of such conversion, and not at some future time when he failed or refused to pay over to his successor on demand made.'* "^Whltehurst v. S., 43 Ind. 473; Tex. App. 522, 28 Am. R. 422; S. v. Calkins v. S., 14 Ohio St. 222; Brewer, 22 La. 273; S. v. Long, 78 Wheeler v. S., 64 Miss. 462, 1 So. N. C. 571. 632; S. v. Header, 62 Vt. 458, 20 «' Drury v. Ter., 9 Okl. 398, 60 Pac. Atl. 730; Griffin v. S., 39 Ala. 541; 101; White v. P., 81 111. 337; Crosby S. V. IngersoU, 17 Wis. 631; Com. v. P., 189 111. 300, 59 N. B. 546; Leslie v. Kimball, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 373; v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 659. See S. V. Daley, 29 Conn. 272; Hartung § 2474. V. P., 28 N. Y. 400; Smith v. S., "Weimer v. P., 186 111. 503, 58 N. 45 Md. 49, 2 Am. C. R. 485; Keller E. 378; Baschleben v. P., 188 111. 261, v. S., 12 Md. 322; U. S. v. Finlay, 1 58 N. E. 946. See McArthur v. S. Abb. (U. S.) 364; Sheppard v. S., 1 (Neb.), 83 N. W. 196. CHAPTER LXV. INTENT. Aet. I. Intent, Element of Crime, II. Intent, When Presumed, III. Willfully and Maliciously, IV. Intent, When Immaterial, V. Intent, When Essential, . VI. Good Faith and Belief, . VII. Proving Defendant's Intent, § 2463 §§ 2464-2466 § 2467 §§ 2468-2469 § 2470 § 2471 § 2472 Article I. Intent, Element op Crime. §2463. Crime defined. — To constitute a crime a public statute must be violated by the joint operation of an aet and intention or crim- inal negligence.^ Article II., Intent, When Presumed. § 2464. Intent presumed from act. — Every man is presumed to in- tend the natural and probable consequences of his act, and it has been uniformly held, therefore, that the intent may be inferred from the acts of the person charged with crime, as well as by words and declara- tions, or from the character, manner and circumstances of the as- sault.^ It is only a presumption that a party intends the ordinary >Kent V. P., 8 Colo. 563, 9 Pac. 852, 5 Am. C. R. 414; Roberts v. P., 19 Mich. 414; Buckner v. Com., 14 Bush (Ky.) 601. 'Crosby v. P., 137 111. 336, 27 N. E. 49; Fltzpatrick v. P., 98 111. 269; Weaver v. P., 132 111. 536, 24 N. E. 571; Hanrahan v. P., 91 111. 147; Kerr Homicide, § 29; Conn v. P., 116 111. 464, 6 N. B. 463; Perry v. P., 14 111. 496; Danaway v. P., 110 111. 333; P. V. Langton, 67 Cal. 427, 7 Pac. 843, 7 Am. C. R. 439; S. v. Milhol- land, 89 Iowa 5, 56 N. W. 403; Rosin V. U. S., 161 U. S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 43; S. V. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505, 22 S. W. 696; S. V. Barbee, 92 N. C. 820, 6 Am. C. R. 180; 3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 13, 14. (632) § 2465 INTENT. 633 and probable consequences of his act, and such presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence.'' §2465. Actual knowledge immaterial. — No doubt where guilty- knowledge is an ingredient of the offense such knowledge must be al- leged and proven, but actual, positive knowledge is not usually re- quired. It may be presumed from the proof of circumstances.* § 2466. Positive intent and indifference. — There can be but little distinction, except in degree of criminality, between a positive intent to do wrong and an indifference whether wrong is done or not." Article III. Willfully and Maliciously. §2467. "Willfully" implies bad intent— "Maliciously."— The words of our statute are that "if any person shall willfully give any false answer to the selectman or moderator presiding at an election he shall forfeit a penalty," etc. The quo animo with which the act is done is material and must be alleged in the indictment." The word "maliciously," when used in the definition of a statutory crime, the act forbidden being merely malum prohibitum, has almost always the effect of making a bad intent or evil mind a constituent of the offense, and the proof must show that the injury was done either out of a spirit of wanton cruelty or of wicked revenge.'' Article IV. Intent, When Immaterial. § 2468. Intent, when not material. — There is a large class of cases in which, on grounds of public policy, certain acts are made punish- able without proof that the defendant understands the facts that gave character to his act. In such cases he acts at his peril and must know whether his act constitutes a criminal offense. Among these cases Are violations of the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, the unlawful sale of naphtha, selling adulterated milk, and other like 'Filkins v. P., 69 N. Y. 101, 25 "Belk v. P., 125 111. 584, 17 N. E. Am. R. 143; Rotlnson v. S., 53 Md. 744; 2 Ros. Cr. Bv., § 725. 151; S. V. Rivers, 58 Iowa 102, 12 N. " Com. v. Shaw, 7 Mete. (Mass.) "W. 117. 52, 56; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 124; S. v. ' Bonker v. P., 37 Mich. 4, 2 Am. Startup, 39 N. J. L. 423. C. R. 84; Sehriedley v. S., 23 Ohio 'Folwell v. S., 49 N. J. L. 31, 6 St. 130; Andrews v. P., 60 111. 354. Atl. 619, 7 Am. C. R. 289. See "Ma- licious Mischief." 634 hughes' criminal law. § 2469 offenses.* It is not material whether the defendant in issuing ware- house receipts intended to defraud the bank or other persons, if in fact his act, knowingly committed, was within the prohibition of the stat- ute. ° § 2469. Besult of recklessness. — If persons having control of horses attached to the vehicle in which they are riding, knowing of the dan- ger of the collision and the probable consequences following there- from, recklessly and negligently, or wantonly and willfully permit the horses to run and collide with the vehicle of another, without using such means as are reasonably at their command to prevent the same, they should be held penally responsible for the result of their negligence or willful omission of duty.^° Article V. Intent, When Essential. § 2470. Intent, when essential. — It is necessary to allege an intent in the indictment only when the statutory terms mention the intent as one of the elements of the offense defined.^^ Article VI. Good Faith and Belief. § 2471. Good faith and belief. — The marriage act provides that "if any person shall join in marriage any minor without the written consent of the parent, guardian or other person having charge of such minor," he shall be liable to a penalty. That the accused acted in good faith, under the belief that the minor was of full age and had the ap- pearance of being over twenty-one, can not be set up as a defense "Com. v. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66, Com. v. Hawkins, 157 Mass. 553, 32 42 N. E. 504, 10 Am. C. R. 67; Com. N. E. 862; Com. v. Matthews, 89 Ky. V. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441; S. v. 291, 11 Ky. L. 505, 12 S. W. 333; 1 White Oak River Corp., Ill N. C. McClain Cr. L., § 130. 661, 16 S. E. 331; Halsted v. S., 41 '^ Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111. 72, 45 N. J. L. 552, 32 Am. R. 247. N. B. 303; McCutcheon v. P., 69 111. "Sykes v. P., 127 111. 131, 19 N. E. 605; S. v. Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 32 705; McCutcheon v. P., 69 111. 601; Pac. 930; S. v. Ross, 25 Mo. 426; S. Seacord v. P., 121 111. 631, 13 N. E. v. Aleck, 41 La. 83, 5 So. 639; S. v. 194. Combs, 47 Kan. 136, 27 Pac. 818; '»Belk V. P., 125 111. 590, 17 N. E. Halsted v. S., 41 N. J. L. 552; S. v. 744; 1 Bish. Cr. L. (8th ed.), § 314; Noland, 111 Mo. 473, 19 S. W. 715; S. v. Grote, 109 Mo. 345, 19 S. W. 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 523. 93; Smith v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 324; § 2472 INTENT. 635 for a violation of the statute. The law explicitly declares what is required for his protection.^'' Article VII. Peoving Defendant's Intent. § 2472. Defendant may tell his intention. — ^"We think a defendant has a right to testify what his intention was in the commission of the act with which he is charged."^* •2 Beckham v. Nacke, 56 Mo. 546, 2 486; Berry v. S., 30 Tex. App. 423, Green C. R. 619. 17 S. W. 1080; Kerrains v. P., 60 N. "Wohlford V. P., 148 111. 298. 36 Y. 228; Fenwick v. S., 63 Md. 239. N. B. 107; P. V. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340; 24 Am. L. Reg. 745; S. v. Evans, 33 ■White V. S., 53 Ind. 595, 16 Am. L. W. Va. 417, 10 S. E. 792; 1 Roscoe Reg. 751; Bolen v. S., 26 Ohio St. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 130; Underhill 371; S. V. Wright, 40 La. 589, 4 So. Cr. Bv., § 59. CHAPTEK LXVL PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY. Art. I. When Accessory, § 3473 II. When Not Accessory, §§ 2474r-3475 III. Unknown Principal, §§ 3476-24768, IV. Accessory, When Principal, .... § 3477 V. Accessory After Pact, § 3478 VI. Aiding in Misdemeanors, § 3479 VII. Indicting Jointly, § 3480 VIII Eecord of Conviction, § 3481 IX. Intent of Principal and Accessory, . . § 3483 X. Wife Not Accessory, § 3483 XI. Acquittal of Principal, § 3484 XII. Defendant Principal and Accessory, . § 3485 Article I. When Accessory. § 2473. Accessory before fact defined. — ^By the common law an accessory before the fact is "one who, being absent at the time of the commission of the offense, doth yet procure, counsel or command an- other to commit it. And absence, it is said, is indispensably necessary to constitute one an accessory ; for if he be actually or constructively present when the felony is committed he is an aider and abetter and not an accessory before the fact."^* If one person instructs another to commit murder by poison, and he effects it with a sword, the former is accessory to the murder, for that was the principal thing to be done and was the substance of the instruction.^" But if, when instructed to burn a house, he, moreover, commits a robbery while so doing, he "1 Hale P. C. 615; 1 Bish. Cr. L. Ev., § 42; 1 Russell Cr. (Greenl. €73; XJsselton v. P., 149 111. 612, 36 ed.) 26. N. B. 952; 4 Bl. Com. 36; 3 Greenl. «3 Greenl. Ev., § 44, (636) § 2474 PEINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY. 637 etands single in the latter crime, and the other is not held responsible for it as accessory.^" Aeticle II. When Not Accessory. § 2474. When not accessory — ^Mere presence. — One who stands by when a crime is committed and consents to the perpetration is not a party to the crime unless he aided, abetted or assisted.^^ § 2475. One resisting officer. — If one of two persons, in resistance of an arrest for a crime, shoots an officer in the presence of the other,, such other person will not be responsible for the shooting, unless it appear that he combined with the one shooting to resist arrest. It is not sufficient that he may have had an intention to resist in his own miad.^* Article III. Unknown Principal, § 2476. Advising unknown principal. — ^A defendant can be charged with advising, aiding, encouraging and abetting an unknown principal in the perpetration of a crime.^' § 2476a. Aiding by signs. — One person may aid or abet another by the use of signs or motions, but turning around and putting his hands in his coat pockets when the officer said that they must go with him is not necessarily a threatening movement, in aid of the other, even though both had stolen goods.^" Article IV. Accessory^ When Principal. § 2477. Accessory a principal. — Under the statutes of some of the states an accessory at or before the fact is a principal, and must be indicted as principal and not otherwise.^^ "3 Greenl. Ev., § 44. 111. 300, 59 N. E. 546; P. v. Garnett, "White v. P., 81 111. 337; P. v. 129 Gal. 364, 61 Pac. 1114. See Chapman, 62 Mich. 280, 7 Am. C. R. § 2461. 570, 28 N. W. 896; P. v. Woodward, "White v. P., 139 111. 150, 28 N. B. 45 Gal. 293, 2 Green C. R. 422; White 1083; White v. P., 81 111. 337; Lamb V. P., 139 111. 149, 28 N. E. 1083; v. P., 96 111. 82. Jones V. P., 166 111. 268, 46 N. E. 723; " Spies v. P., 122 111. 241, 12 N. E. Kemp V. Com., 80 Va. 443; S. v. 865, 17 N. E. 898; 1 Archbold Cr. PI Parr, 33 Iowa 553; S. v. Cox, 65 Mo. & Pr., § 15. 29; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 41; S. v. Hann, "White v. P., 139 III. 149, 28 N E 40 N. J. L. 228; Green v. S., 51 Ark. 1083. 189, 10 S. W. 266; Crosby v. P., 189 ^Coates v. P., 72 111. 303; Usselton V. P., 149 111. 614, 36 N. E. 952; Bax- 638 hughes' criminal law. " § 2478 Article V. Accessory After Fact. § 2478. Accessory after fact, distinct oflfense. — A person indicted with others as principal can not be convicted as an accessory after the fact, the latter being a distinct ofEense and not the same transaction."^ Article VI. Aiding in Misdemeanors. § 2479. Aiding in misdemeanor. — Where a person is charged with aiding and abetting another in the perpetration of a felony, and is ,found guilty of aiding and abetting in the perpetration, not of felony, but of a misdemeanor included in the felony charge, he is guilty as principal, because there are no degrees of guilt in misdemeanors.^* Article VII. Indicting Jointly. § 2480. Indicting principal and accessory jointly. — The principal and accessory can be joined in the same count of the indictment by proper allegations showing the commission of the offense by one and alleging the facts showing the other to be accessory."* In drawing an indictment against an accessory, it may be advisable to describe the circumstances of the offense as it actually occurred, but it is not in- dispensible."^ Article VIII. Eecord oe Conviction. § 2481. Record of conviction, prima facie evidence. — The principal having been tried and convicted, the record of such trial and convic- tion is competent evidence and sufScient to make out a prima facie ter V. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 382; Fixmer 420; Curlln v. S., 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) v. P., 153 111. 129, 38 N. B. 667; P. v. 144; S. v. Caswell, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) Lyon, 99 N. Y. 210, 1 N. E. 673, 5 400. Am. C. R. 11; Wixson v. P., 5 Park. "Peltes v. Com., 126 Mass. 242; Cr. (N. Y.) 121; Hatfield v. Com., 21 Loyd v. S., 45 Ga. 57; S. v. Atkinson, Ky. L. 1461, 55 S. W. 679. Contra, 40 S. C. 363, 18 S. B. 1021. See also S. v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, S. v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 408; Com. v. 10 Am. C. R. 48; P. v. Rozelle, 78 Adams, 127 Mass. 15; S. v. Ruby, 68 Cal. 84, 20 Pac. 36; Smith v. S., 37 Me. 543. Ark. 274; Rex v. Manners, 7 C. & P. '"Coates v. P., 72 111. 304; Baxter 801. V. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 383; Usselton v. == Reynolds v. P., 83 111. 480; White P., 149 111. 612, 36 N. E. 952; Brandt V. P., 81 111. 337. Contra, Yoe v. P., v. Com., 94 Pa. St. 290; S. v. Bogue, 49 111. 414. See 4 Bl. Com. 40. 52 Kan. 79, 34 Pac. 410. See Goins =" Queen v. Waudby, 2 Q. B. D. 482, v. S., 46 Ohio St. 457, 21 N. E. 476, 10 Am. C. R. 24; Atkins v. S., 95 8 Am. C. R. 25; Fixmer v. P., 153 Tenn. 474, 32 S. W. 391, 10 Am. C. R. 111. 130, 38 N. B. 667. § 2482 PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSOKY. 639 case of the principal's guilt, where such guilt must be established as a part of the case against the accessory, who is afterwards tried. The record is 'prima facie evidence of the guilt of the principal, but is not conclusive.^" A defendant was tried and convicted for counsel- ing, aiding and abetting his mother in the commission of a murder, who had been previously convicted of the murder. Upon the trial of the son the record of the conviction of the mother, as well as the tes- timony of witnesses, was introduced in evidence, and the court in- structed the jury that such record of conviction was prima facie evi- dence of the guilt of the mother. Held competent on the trial of the son.^' Article IX. Intent op Principal and Accessory. § 2482. Intent of principal and accessory. — It is necessary in all cases that the accessory have the same intent with the principal, and unless by virtue of some statutory provision, no one who is indicted as principal can be convicted as accessory, or vice versa.^^ Article X. Wife Not Accessory. § 2483. Wife not accessory. — A feme covert can not become an ac- cessory by the receipt and concealment of her husband, for she is pre- sumed to act under his coercion, and therefore she is not bound; neither ought she to discover her lord.^° Article XI. Acquittal op Principal. ^2484. Acquittal of principal acquits accessory. — "The leading doctrine in respect to an accessory is, that he follows like a shadow his principal. He can neither be guilty of a higher offense than his principal, nor guilty at all as an accessory, unless his principal is guilty. So, according to the general doctrine, not only a man can not be guilty as an accessory unless there is a principal who is guilty, "S. V. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 782, 4 Am. C. R. 529; Levy v. P., 80 998, 10 Am. C. R. 49; Anderson v. S., N. Y. 327; Arnold v. S., 9 Tex. App. 63 Ga. 675; P. v. Buckland, 13 Wend. 435. (N. Y.) 593; Com. v. York; 9 Mete. "'Meister v. P., 31 Mich. 99, 1 Am. (Mass.) 93; S. v. Mosley, 31 Kan. C. R. 101; 1 Hale P. C. 617; S. v. 355, 2 Pac. 782; Levy v. P., 80 N. Y. Cassady, 12 Kan. 550, 1 Am. C. R. 327. 568. " S. V. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 Pac. '° 4 Bl. Com. 39; 1 Hale P. C. 621. 640 hughes' criminal law. § 2485 but also he can not be convicted except jointly with or after the principal, whose acquittal acquits him."^° An accessory was tried and convicted of an assault and battery with intent to kill, but before judgment on the verdict the principal was tried on the same charge and acquitted. Such acquittal entitled the accessory to his dis- charge.'^ Article XII. Defendant Peincipal and Accessory. § 2485. Defendant principal and accessory. — ^If the defendant was in fact both a principal and an accessory, and if, in law, on the plea of former conviction, he could not be convicted of either crime, after he had been convicted of the other, he could, on the plea of not guilty, be convicted of either, when he had been previously convicted of neither.*^ =» McCarty v. S., 44 Ind. 214, 15 " S. v. Buzzell, 59 N. H. 65, 4 Am. Am. R. 232, 2 Green C. R. 715; Johns C. R. 413; Com. v. Bakeman, 105 V. S., 19 Ind. 421, 81 Am. D. 408. Mass. 53-61; Com. v. Dean, 109 Mass. « McCarty v. S., 44 Ind. 214, 15 349, 351. Am. R. 232, 2 Green C. R. 715. CHAPTBK LXVII. REASONABLE DOUBT. Art. I. Duty of Jury, §§2486-3487 II. Eeasonable Doubt Defined, § 2488 III. "Moral Certainty," § 2489 IV. Doubt, on "Each Link," § 2490 V. Applied to Pacts Only, § 2491 : VI. Doubt in Court of Eeview, § 2492 ' VII. Instructions on Doubt, §§ 2493-2494 Article I. Duty op Jury. § 2486. Each juror to be convinced. — ^Bach of the jurors individ- ually must be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can be had, and the accused is entitled to an instruction to that effect.^^ § 2487. What is required of jury. — A person accused of crime is entitled to have the evidence closely and carefully considered, and he can only be lawfully convicted when, after such scrutiny, the jury can say upon oath that the evidence leaves in their minds no reasona- ble doubt of the guilt of the accused. It is the duty of the jury to scrutinize the evidence with the utmost caution and care, bringing to bear such reason and prudence as they would exercise in the most im- portant affairs of life." Article II. Eeasonable Doubt Defined. § 2488. What constitutes doubt. — It is difficult to define what is a reasonable doubt, but all the authorities agree that such a doubt °'S. V. Witt, 34 Kan. 488, 8 Pac. "Anderson v. S., 41 Wis. 430, 2 769; Stitz v. S., 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. E. Am. C. R. 199. See P. v. Ah Sing, 145; Little v. P., 157 111. 153, 42 N. B. 51 Cal. 372, 2 Am. C. R. 482. 389; S. V. Sloan, 55 Iowa 217, 220, 7 N. W. 516; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 15. hughes' c. l.— 41 ( 641 ) 642 hughes' criminal law. § 2489 nmst be actual and substantial, as contra-distinguished from a mere vague apprehension, and must arise out of the evidence.^^ A reasona- ble doubt, which will authorize an acquittal, is one as to the guilt of the accused on the whole of the evidence, and not as to any particular fact.'^ "A reasonable doubt is one arising from a candid and im- partial investigation of all the evidence, and such as, in the graver transactions of life, would cause a reasonable and prudent man to hesitate and pause."^^ The jury may be said to entertain a reason- able doubt when, after a comparison and consideration of all the evi- dence, they can not say that they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.^' Article III. "Moral Certainty." § 2489. "Moral certainty." — Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "to a moral certainty," are synonymous and equivalent.*' Article IV. Doubt, on "Bach Link." § 2490. Doubt as to "each link." — It is sufficient if, taking the tes- timony altogether, the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and not beyond a reasonable doubt as to each link in the chain of circumstances relied upon for conviction.*" Article V. Applied to Facts Only. "§^491. Applied to facts only. — ^We do not think the rule as to Teasonable doubt has ever been carried so far as to be made applicable to the law.*^ = 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 29; »« Com. v. Webster, 5- Gush. (Mass.) Earn V. P., 73 111. 329; Carlton v. 320; Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 192, 3»., 150 m. 181, 192, 37 N. E. 244; 37 N. B. 244; P. v. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288, Hopt V. Utah, 120 U. S. 430, 439, 2 Green C. R. 399; P. v. Kernaghan, 7 S. Ct. 614; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 10. 72 Cal. 609, 14 Pac. 566. See Under- "Mullins V. P., 110 in. 47; Crews hill Cr. Ev., § 12. V. P., 120 111. 321, 11 N. E. 404; «= Carlton v. P., 150 111. 192, 37 N. T)avls V. P., 114 111. 98, 29 N. E. 192; E. 244; Com. v. CasUey, 118 Mass. 1. Xelgh V. P., 113 111. 379; Williams v. "Bressler v. P., 117 111. 422, 8 N. P., 166 111. 136, 46 N. E. 749. See E. 62; Keating v. P., 160 111. 484,' Walker v. P., 88 N. Y. 81. 43 N. E. 724. Contra, S. v. Furney, "Dunn V. P., 109 111. 635; May v. 41 Kan. 115, 21 Pac. 213, 8 Am. C. R. P., 60 111. 119; Connaghan v. P., 88 137; P. v. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 33 111. 462; Little v. P., 157 111. 158, 42 N. W. 821, 7 Am. C. R. 362; Clare v. 'N. E. 389; Com. v. Miller, 139 Pa. St. P., 9 Colo. 122, 10 Pac. 799, 8 Cr. L. 77, 21 Atl. 138, 8 Am. C. R. 623. Mag. 184; Marion v. S., 16 Neb. 349, See P. V. Ah Sing, 51 Cal. 372, 2 Am. 5 Cr. L. Mag. 859, 20 N. W. 289. C. R. 482; P. v. Cheong Foon Ark, «0'Neil v. S., 48 Ga. 66, 2 Greea «61 Cal. 527. C. R. 581. § 2492 KEASONABLE DOUBT. 643 Article VI. Doubt in Court of Eeview. § 2492. In court of review. — It must appear that there is clearly a reasonable and well founded doubt of the guilt of the accused be- fore a court of review will interpose on the weight of the evidence.*^ A case will be reversed purely on questions of fact where the facts do not convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a reason- able doubt. *^ Article VII. Instructions on Doubt. § 2493. Instruction erroneous. — An instruction, that "if the evi- dence is such that a naau of prudence would act upon it in his own affairs of the greatest importance, then there can not remain a reason- able doubt within the meaning of the law," is erroneous.** § 2494. Instruction correct. — An instruction "that the state must make out the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that it is not neces- sary for the state to show that it is impossible for the crime to have been committed by anybody else, or that it might not, by bare possi- bility, have been done by some one else, but the state must show that it was the prisoner .to a moral certainty." Held correct.*^ "Gainey v. P., 97 111. 275; Falk v. «P. v. Ah Sing. 51 Cal. 372, 2 Am. P., 42 111. 333; McCoy v. P., 175 111. C. R. 483. See also P. v. Brannon, 229, 51 N. E. 777. The rule requir- 47 Cal. 96; 2 Green C. R. 435. Ing the guilt of the accused to he " Houser v. S., 58 Ga. 78. See also established beyond a reasonable P. v. Dewey, 2 Idaho 79, 6 Pac. 103; doubt applies to misdemeanor as Parrish v. S., 14 Neb. 60, 15 N. W. well as felony cases: Vandeventer 357. The evidence in the following v. S., 38 Neb. 592, 57 N. "W. 397; cases was held sufficient within the Puller V. S., 12 Ohio St. 433; Stewart meaning of the rule of reasonable V. S., 44 Ind. 237. • doubt: Silger v. P., 107 111. 563; "Price V. P., 109 111. 110; Collins McMahon v. P., 120 111. 581, 11 N. B. V. P., 103 111. 23; Roberts v. P., 99 883; Clark v. P., Ill 111. 404; Mooney 111. 276; Falk v. P., 42 111. 333; Stu- v. P., Ill 111. 388; Keenan v. P., 104= art V. P., 73 111. 21; P. v. Hamilton. 111. 386. 46 Cal. 540, 2 Green C. R. 433. CHAPTEE LXVIII. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Aet. I. Supreme Power, Where, § 3495 II. Validity of Statutes, §§ 2496-3497 III. Title of Aet, What Embraced, • . . §§ 2498-3499 IV. Police Power, Scope, §§ 2500-2503 V. Class Legislation, §§ 2504-2505 VI. Trial by Jury, §§ 2506-2508 VII. Certain Property Eights, §§ 2509-3511 VIII. Certain Business Eegulated, ....§§ 2513-3516 IX. Due Process of Law, §§ 3517-3518 X. Nature of Punishment, §§ 3519-2521 XL Prosecutions in People's Name, ... § 2522 XII. Defendant's Eights, § 3533 XIII. Eestrictions on Commerce, ....§§ 2524-2525 XIV. Imprisonment for Debt, § 3536 XV. Arrest without Warrant, § 3537 XVI. Place of Trial, § 3538 XVII. Civil Eights, § 2529 XVIII. Federal Constitution, §§ 2530-2531 Article I. Supreme Power, Where. § 2495. Supreme power in parliament. — Parliament can do every- thing that is not naturally impossible: that what parliament doeth no authority upon earth can undo, but the law-making powers of our states and the United States are hedged about with constitutional lim- itations.^ "Hawthorn v. P., 109 111. 305; An- Llm. 88, 89; P. v. Draper, 15 N. Y. drews v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 165, 543. 1 Green C. R. 469; Cooley Const. (644) I 2496 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 645 Article II. Validity of Statutes. § 2496. Statutes presumed constitutional. — The courts never in- terfere to declare a law unconstitutional in case of doubt. The pre- sumption is in favor of the validity of a law, and the courts will, if jiossible, give such construction as will sustain the law." § 2497. Statutes partly valid. — When constitutional and unconsti- tutional provisions in a statute are distinct and separable the valid provisions may stand and the invalid be rejected.^ Article III. Title of Act, What Embraced. § 2498. Title of an act expressing subject. — It is not necessary that the title of an act shall express all the minor divisions of the general subject to which the act relates, but if the title should express such minor subdivisions such expression will not render the title obnoxious to the constitutional provision.* § 2499. Title of act — ^Embrace one subject. — An act which is enti- tled "An act to regulate the manufacture, transportation, use and sale of explosives, and to punish an improper use of the same," is not violative of the constitution of Illinois, which provides "that no act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'"* There may be included in an act any means which are reasonably adapted to secure the objects indicated by the title of the act without violating the constitutional provision forbid- ding more than one subject to be expressed in the title of the act." 'P. V. Gaulter, 149 III. 47, 36 N. E. 30; Prescott v. Chicago, 60 111. 121; 576; Hawthorn v. P., 109 111. 307; Hawthorn v. P., 109 111. 302; P. v. iJooley Const. Llm. (6th ed.), 216; Wright, 70 111. 389. See also P. v. Powell V. Com., 114 Pa. St. 265, 7 Loewenthal, 93 111. 205; Johnson v. Atl. 913, 7 Am. C. R. 34. P., 83 111. 436; Sykes v. P., 127 111. = P. V. Illinois State Reformatory, 126, 19 N. E. 705. 148 111. 425, 36 N. B. 76; Donners- "Hronek v. P., 134 111. 144, 24 N. herger v. Prendergast, 128 111. 229, E. 861. 21 N. E. 1; Cornell v. P., 107 111. ° Cohn v. P., 149 111. 486, 37. N. E, 572; Noel v. P., 187 111. 587, 597, 58 60; Larned v. Tiernan, 110 111. 177; N. B. 616; S. v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. Blake v. P., 109 111. 504; Gunter v. 290; S. V. Newton, 59 Ind. 173; P. v. Dale Co., 44 Ala. 639; Thomasson v. Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525; S. v. Beddo S., 15 Ind. 449; S. v. Squires, 26 (Utah, 1900), 63 Pac. 96. Iowa 345; P. v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; ' Hronek v. P., 134 111. 144, 24 N. Fuller v. P., 92 111. 185. See also B. 861; Plummer v. P., 74 111. 361; S. v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. Fuller V. P., 92 111. 182; Magner v. 458, 6 Am. C. R. 424. P., 97 111. 320; Cole v. Hall, 103 111. 646_ hughes' criminal law. § 2500 Article IV. Police Power, Scope. § 2500. Forming classes for police regulation. — The legislature has power to form classes for the purpose of police regulation in the enact- ment of statutes regulating certain kinds of business, providing it does not arbitrarily discriminate between persons in substantially th& same situation. The discrimination in such classification must rest upon reasonable grounds of difference. '^ § 2501. Police power defined. — The police power is that inherent and plenary power which enables the state to restrain or prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety 'and welfare of society.* "A police regulation has reference to the health, comfort, safety and wel- fare of society," which can not include a barber shop kept open on Sunday or any other harmless business.' § 2502. Statutes against speculating on markets. — Gambling on the market prices of grain and other commodities is universally recog- nized as a pernicious evil, and a statute which declares grain option contracts to be gambling is valid police regulation, and is not in vio- lation of the constitutional provision against depriving a person of liberty or property without due process of law.^" § 2503. Flag law unconstitutional. — The legislature, under the guise of police regulations, can not, by statutory enactment, prohibit the use of the national ilag for commercial purposes or as an adver- tising medium. Such legislation is unconstitutional and invades the personal rights and personal liberty of the individual citizen.^^ Article V. Class Legislation. § 2504. Class legislation invalid. — A statute forbidding any per- son, company or corporation engaged in manufacturing or mining ' Lasher v. P., 183 111. 231, 55 N. E. 98; Frorer v. P., 141 111. 186, 31 N. B. 663. 395; Millett v. P., 117 111. 303, 7 N. E. "Meadowcrott v. P., 163 111. 65, 45 631; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. N. E. 303; Dunne v. P., 94 111. 120; 315; P. v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377, 2 N. B. Harmon v. City of Chicago, 110 111. 29; S. v. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326,. 400; Cooley Const. Lim. (6th ed.) 33S. W.. 784; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112. 704; Powell v. Com., 114 Pa. St. 265, Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803. Contra. P. v. 7 Am. C. R. 37, 7 Atl. 913; Com. v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541. Bearse, 132 Mass. 542; Jacob's Case, "Booth v. P., 186 111. 43, 57 N. B. 98 N. Y. 98. 798. - " Eden V. P., 161 111. 306, 43 N. E. " Ruhstrat v. P., 185 111. 133, 5T 1108; Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick. N. E. 41. (Mass.) 121; Jacobs' Case, 98 N. Y. § 2505 * CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 647 business from engaging or being interested in, directly or indirectly,, the keeping of any truck store for supplying its or their employes ■with clothing, tools, groceries or provisions while so engaged in min- ing or manufacturing, is unconstitutional and void.^^ The legisla- ture has no power to deny to persons in one kind of business the privi- lege to contract for labor and. sell their products without regard to weight, while at the same time allowing other persons this privilege in all other kinds of business.^^ § 2505. Class legislation, v^hen not. — Commission merchants deal- ing in the small products of the farm are of a different class from those who transact business in the great markets for the sale of grain, live stock and dressed meats. The state laws for the inspection of grain provide for the protection of shippers in that market, and there is also state inspection of live stock and dressed meats. The law, which classifies small commission merchants engaged in the produce commission business, rests upon a reasonable ground as a basis for the classification.^* Article VI. Teial by Jury. § 2506. Trial by jury. — Section 5 of Article 2 of the constitution of Illinois, of 1870, provides as follows : "The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." This provision means the right of trial by jury as it existed at common law, and does not in- clude any statutory rights existing prior to the adoption of the con- stitution.^^ § 2507. Jury trial — Violation of ordinances. — The constitutional provision declaring that "in all prosecutions the accused shall be al- lowed to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury" is not in- tended to include prosecutions for violations of city ordinances, but *'Prorer v. P., 141 111. 174, 31 N. E. W. Va. 179, 10 S. E. 285; Lippmaa 395; Ramsey v. P., 142 IlL 383, 32 v. P., 175 111. 104, 51 N. E. 872; N. B. 364. "^ Johnson v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 4S "Millett V. P., 117 111. 304, 7 N. E. Minn. 223, 45 N. W. 156; Ramsey v. 631; Bailey v. P., 190 111. 31; Eden P., 142 111. 380, 32 N. E. 364. V. P., 161 111. 300, 43 N. E. 1108; "Lasher v. P., 183 111. 232, 55 N. Harding v. P., 160 lU. 464, 43 N. E. E. 663. 624. See Whitebreast Fuel Co. v. "George v. P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. P., 175 111. 51, 51 N. E. 853; S. v. B. 741; Bast Kingston v. Towle, 4S Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 22 S. W. 350; N. H. 57; S. v. Griffin, 66 N. H. 326, Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 29 Atl. 414, 10 Am. C. R. 399. 431, 6 Atl. 354; S. v. Goodwill, 33 648 hughes' criminal law. § 2508 is intended to include only prosecutions for violations of the laws of the state.^® § 2508. Trial without jury. — The constitution of Mississippi de- clares that: "The legislature, in eases of petit larceny, assault, as- sault and battery, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, drunkenness, vagrancy and other misdemeanors of like character, may dispense with an inquest of a grand jury and may authorize prosecutions before justices of the peace." A statute authorizing prosecutions before jus- tices of the peace, for violations of a law prohibiting the sale of intoxi- cating liquors, is valid under the above constitutional provision, even where it provides for trial without a jury.^' Article VII. Certain Pkopeett Eights. § 2509. Statutes on labor unions. — A statute which makes it a criminal offense for an employer to discharge his employes because they belong to labor unions is unconstitutional, as depriving a person of his constitutional rights.^' § 2510. Property rights, in general. — To limit the use and enjoy- ment of property by legislative action is not taking it away from the owner or depriving him of the use of it without due process of law, within the meaning of the constitution providing that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," when the property, whose use and enjoyment are so limited, is in- vested in a business affected with a public use, or is used as an acces- sory to carry on such business.^® It is a well-settled rule of the law that all property of the citizen is held subject to such police and other regulations as the legislature may provide for the protection of the health and safety of the people, and that no right of property can intervene to arrest the enforcement of penalties for the violation of the criminal statutes of the state."" " S. v. City of Topeka, 36 Kan. 76, N. E. 1007; S. v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 12 Pac. 310, 7 Am. C. R. 490; Dyers 31 S. W. 781. v. Com., 42 Pa. St. 89; In re Rolfs, "Burdick v. P., 149 111. 606, 36 N. 30 Kan. 758, 4 Am. C. R. 451, 1 Pac. E. 948; Com. v. Wilson, 14 Phila. S23. (Pa.) 384. " Ex parte Wooten, 62 Miss. 174, ^ Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa 286, 6 Am. C. R. 181. 6 Am. C. R. 150, 25 N. W. 131, 27 " Gillespie v. P., 188 111. 176, 58 N. W. 244. § 2511 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 649 § 2511. Property rights — Destruction of certain animals. — The natural, essential and inherent right of protecting property, declared in the bill of rights, is the right to do whatever, under the circum- stances of each case, is apparently reasonably necessary to be done in. defense of property; and a statute forbidding the destruction of cer- tain fur-bearing animals during a certain period of the year is not applicable to cases in which such destruction is an exercise of the con- stitutional right of protecting property.*^ Article VIII. Certain Business Eegulated. § 2512. Banking is affected with public interest. — The business of a banker is not juris private, but, like that of an inn-keeper or com- mon carrier, is affected with a public interest, and, therefore, subject to public regulation by legislation.^^ § 2513. Kestricting sale of tickets. — The statute of Illinois re- stricting the sale of railroad tickets to agents to whom authority has been given by the railroad is not violative of the constitution of Illi- nois, nor of the constitution of the United States.^^ § 2514. Restricting commerce — ^Killing game. — ^A statute prohibit- ing persons from killing, selling or having possession for sale, certain kinds of game during a certain period of each year, includes any such game shipped into the state from other states for sale ; and such stat- ute is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, which confers upon congress power to regulate commerce among the states.^* § 2515. Seizing and destroying goods. — ^Under the various acts of congress, goods and things are seized, condemned and destroyed with- out service of process on the owner other than seizure of the goods and arrest of the person in whose possession they are found. Such proceedings are regarded as valid and constitutional.^^ ■^Aldrlch V. Wright, 53 N. H. 398; 57 Minn. 345, 59 N. W. 3l7, 24 L. R. 2 Green C. R. 307. A. 498; Jamison v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 '' Meadowcroft V. P., 163 111. 64, 45 S. W. 1156; Com. v. Keary (Pa.), N. E. 303 (citing Nance v. Hemphill, 48 Atl. 472; P. v. Warden of City 1 Ala. 551; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006, Y. 52; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 43 L.. R. A. 264. 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519); Robertson v. =4 jj^gner v. P., 97 111. 333. p., 20 Colo. 279, 38 Pac. 326, 9 Am. '''Glennon v. Britton, 155 111. 245, C. R. 287. 40 N. E. 594; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. '"Burdick v. P., 149 111. 603, 36 N. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524. E. 948, 24 L. R. A. 152; S. v. Corbett, 650 hughes' criminal law. § 2516 § 2516. Destruction of dogs — Taxing dogs. — Statutes of the states and city ordinances providing for the summary destruction of dog& found running at large in violation of the ordinances are valid, and' not unconstitutional."* The registration fee required to he paid upon the registration of each dog is a tax, but clearly not that kind of tax contemplated by the constitutional provision calling for "a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation." It is a tax levied for the purpose of regulation and restriction, and is not levied merely for the purpose of raising revenue, as the provision of the constitution con- templates. It is not unconstitutional.^'' Article IX. Due Process of Law. § 2517. Due process of law defined. — "Due process of law" men- tioned in the constitution means "law of the land," as used in Magna CJiarta, and means in the due course of legal proceedings according to those rules and forms which have been established for the protection of private rights.^^ § 2518. Eight to public trial. — Where one was on trial for murder, for the court to order the officer to exclude all persons from the court room except "respectable" persons, is error and violative of the de- fendant's constitutional right to a public trial.^' Article X. ISTature op Punishment. § 2519. Maximum term of imprisonment. — The legislature has con- stitutional authority to fix the maximum term of imprisonment as the ^ S. V. City of Topeka, 36 Kan. 76, "« Burdick v. P., 149 111. 600, 36 N. 12 Pac. 310; Woolf v. Chalker, 31 E. 948; Cooley Const. Lim. (Sth Conn. 121; Blair v. Forehand, 100 ed.) 356; Davidson v. New Orleans, Mass. 136; Lowell v. Gathrlght, 97 96 U. S. 97; Rhinehart v. Schuyler, Ind. 313; Morey v. Brown, 42 N. H. 2 Gilm. (111.) 473; Millett v. P., 117 373; Marshall v. Blackshire, 44 Iowa 111. 301, 7 N. B. 631; Eden v. P., 161 475; Cole v. Hall, 103 111. 30. See 111. 303, 43 N. B. 1108; Harding v. also City of Farlhault v. Wilson, 34 P., 160 111. 464, 43 N. B. 624; Janes Minn. 254, 6 Am. C. R. 546, 25 N. W. v. Reynolds, 2 Tex. 251; Wynehamer 449; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 539. v. P., 13 N. Y. 432; In re Buchanan, " S. V. City of Topeka, 36 Kan. 76, 146 N. Y. 264, 40 N. B. 883, 9 Am. 12 Pac. 310, 7 Am. C. R. 485; Cole v. C. R. 499; Ex parte Virginia, 100 Hall, 103 111. 30; Hoist v. Roe, 39 U. S. 346; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. Ohio St. 340; KalthofC v. Hendrie, 115. 48 Mich. 306, 12 N. W. 191; Tenney "F. v. Murry, 89 Mich. 276, 9 Am. V. Lenz, 16 Wis. 589; Mowery v. C. R. 720, 60 N. W-. 995. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 175; Mitchell v. Williams, 27 Ind. 62. § 2520 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 651 pnnisliineiit for violation of the criminal code by offenders under the age of twenty-one years; such punishment is not disproportionate to the offense, nor cruel or unusual.^" § 2520. Punishment fixed by law — ^Not jury. — ^A prisoner on trial for burglary and larceny, or for any other violaltion of the criminal law, has not the constitutional right to have the quantity of his pun- ishment fixed by a jury.^^ § 2521. Death penalty — By electricity. — A statute providing that a person who is sentenced to death as the penalty for the commission of crime shall be kept in solitary confinement until executed, is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States ; nor is the law which provides for execution by electricity unconstitutional.^^ Article XI. Prosecutions in People's Name. § 2522. Prosecutions in name of people. — The constitutional pro- vision of Illinois, that "all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Illinois, and conclude against the peace and dignity of the same," has no applica- tion to summary proceedings, either under statute or at common law, such as striking an attorney from the roll or suspending him from practice.'^ Article XII. Defendant's Eights. § 2523. Compelling defendant to testify. — The constitution of Illi- nois provides that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself." To compel a defendant to appear before the grand jury and give evidence against himself is a violation of this provision.** Article XIII. Eestrictions on Commerce. § 2524. Corporations are "persons." — Any laws the sovereign power may find it necessary or salutary to enact, regulating, controlling, re- ■^ P. V. Illinois State Reformatory, 155, 12 S. Ct. 156; .Wilkerson v. 148 111. 421, 36 N. E. 76; George v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130. P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. E. 741; S. v. '"Moutray v. P., 162 111. 197, 44 Peters, 43 Ohio St. 629, 4 N. E. 81. N. E. 496. =" P. V. Illinois State Reformatory, '^ Boone v. P., 148 111. 449, 36 N. E. 148 111. 422, 36 N. B. 76; George v. 99; Blackwell v. S., 67 Ga. 76, 4 Am. P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. E. 741. O. R. 184; Minters v. P., 139 111. 365, " McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 29 N. E. 45. 652 hughes' criminal law §2525 strieting or prohibiting the sale of a particular kind of property for the general benefit, as a police regulation, apply as well to the property of corporations as to individuals. They are presumed to be passed for the common good, and to be necessary for the protection of the public, and can not be said to impair any right, or to do any injury , in the proper and legal sense of these terms. '^ § 2525. Restricting commerce — Peddlers. — A statute which pro- vides that "whoever shall deal in selling of goods, wares or mer- chandise, other than the growth, product or manufacture, by going from place to place, either by land or by water, to sell the same, is declared to be a peddler," and should obtain a license to so peddle. This statute is held to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the constitution of the United States, and, therefore, null and void.^* Akticle Xrv. Impeisonment foe Debt. § 2526. Imprisonment for debt. — ^A statute providing that the de- fendant, on failure to pay fine and costs, may be committed to jail by order of the court, there to remain until the fine and costs are fully paid, or he is discharged according to law, is not unconstitutional. Such costs are not a debt within the meaning of the constitution re- ferring to imprisonment.^' The constitutional provision that "no person shall be imprisoned for debt unless upon refusal to deliver up his estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law, or in case where there is strong presumption of fraud," does not extend to actions for torts nor to fines and penalties arising from a violation of the penal statutes of the state. It has reference to debts arising ex contractu.^^ Aeticle XV. Aeeest w^ithout Waeeant. § 2527. Arrests without warrant. — Arrests for misdemeanors with- out a warrant, committed in the presence of the officer making the ar- rest, are not violative of the constitution.'' ■"Com. v. Intox. Liq., 115 Mass. ''Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 652, 13 153, 2 Green C. R. 291; Coats v. N. N. E. 213. Y., 7 Cowen 585, 604; Thorpe v. ^Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 652, 13 Railroad, 27 Vt. 140; Brick Pr. N. E. 213; Rich v. P., 66 111. 515; P. Church V. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 5 v. Cotton, 14 111. 414; McKindley v. Cowen 538; P. v. Hawley, 3 Mich. Rising, 28 111. 343. 330. See § 2540. " North v. P., 139 111. 105, 28 N. B. » S. V. McGinnis, 37 Ark. 362, 4 966. See "Arrests." Am. C. R. 350; Welton v. S., 1 Otto (U. S.) 275. § 2528 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 653 Article XVI. Place op Trial. §2528. Place of trial. — A statute providing that "Where an of- fense shall be committed on a county line, or within one hundred rods of the same, it may be so alleged, and the trial may be in either county divided by such line," is unconstitutional.** Article XVII. Civil Eights. § 2529. Violating civil rights. — A statute of a state which pro- vides that only white male persons of the state shall be liable to serve as jurors is violative of the rights of the colored race and discriminates against them.*^ The federal statute relating to the civil rights of the colored race is unconstitutional ; such rights are" matters for the states.*'' Article XVIII. Federal Constitution. § 2530. Application of federal constitution. — The federal and state courts, without diversity of opinion, have long held that the pro- visions of the federal constitution do not apply to the states, unless the states are referred to by clear implication, or express words. The law upon this point has long been settled.*' § 2531. Application of fourteenth amendment. — The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States prohibits the states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, but it does not prohibit the states' from proceeding in felony cases by information when that procedure is authorized by the state constitution.** "Buckrice v. P., 110 111. 32; S. v. (U. S.) 410; Kring v. Missouri, 107 Lowe, 21 W. Va. 783, 45 Am. R. 570. U. S. 221, 2 S. Ct. 443; Twitchell v. "Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, Com., 7 Wall. (U. S.) 321; Pearson 3 Am. C. R. 532; Strauder v. West v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294; Cooley Virginia, 100 TJ. S. 303. Const. Llm. (5th ed.), 19; P. v. lUi- •" Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, riois State Reformatory, 148 111. 425, 3 S. Ct. 18. 36 N. E. 76. " S. V. Boswell, 104 Ind. 541, 4 « S. v. Boswell, 104 Ind. 541, 4 N. N. E. 675, 5 Am. C. R. 167; Barron E. 675, 5 Am. C. R. 168; S. v. Bar- V. Mayor, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 243; An- nett, 3 Kan. 250; Hurtado v. Califor- drews v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 165, 1 nia, 110 U. S. 516, 4 S. Ct. Ill, 292; Green C. R. 469; Pox v. Ohio, 5 How. Rowan v. S., 30 Wis. 129. CHAPTEE LXIX. CONSTEUCTION. Art. I. Construction is Legal Question, ... § 2532 II. Intent Must Govern, § 2533 III. Eules for Construing, §§ 2534-2537 IV. Implied Authority, §§ 2538-2539 V. Persons Included, §§ 2540-2541 VI. Statutes with Two Meanings, ... § 2542 VII. Statutes of Other States, § 2543 VIII. Eepeal of Common Law, § 2544 IX. Equitable Construction, § 2545 X. Law of Procedure, § 2546 AETICLE I. CONSTEDCTION IS LeGAL QuESTIOlT. § 2532. Construction is question of law. — The general rule of law is that the construction of every written instrument is matter of law, and, as a necessary consequence, that courts must, in the first instance, judge of the legal force and effect of the language. The meaning of words, and the grammatical construction of the English language, so far as they are established by the rules and usages of language, are prima facie matters of law to be construed and passed upon by the court.^ Aeticle II. Intent Must Govern. § 2533. Intent must govern. — In construing the law, the intent of the law-making power must govern, even to changing the language of the statute.^ In the construction of a statute the courts are not con- ^ Brown v. Brown, 8 Mete. (Mass.) ers v. Kline, 56 Miss. 818; Haley v. 573; S. V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 7 Am. S., 63 Ala. 89. C. R. 395, 12 Pac. 318; 1 Greenl. Bv., =• P. v. Gaulter, 149 111. 39, 36 N. E. § 5; Rogers Exp. Test., § 121; Rodg- 576; Cain v. S., 20 Tex. 355; Ex (654) § 2534 CONSTRUCTION. 655 fined to the literal meaning of the words of the statute, but the inten- tion may be collected from the necessity or objects of the act, and the words may be enlarged or restricted according to its true intent.' Article III. Eules eoe Construing. § 2534. Kule for construing — Title of act. — In construing a statute to arrive at the legislative intention, the court will look at tht whole act and may also consider other and prior acts relating to the same general subject, as well as the mischief and the remedy.* Resort may be had to the title of an act to enable the court to discover the intent, and remove what otherwise might be uncertain or ambiguous, in con- struing statutes." §2535. General words restricted — ^Proviso. — "If general words follow an enumeration of particular cases, such general words are held to apply only to eases of the same class or kind as those which are expressly mentioned."" A proviso in a statute is intended to qualify what is affirmed in the body of the act, section or paragraph preceding it.' § 2536. Strained construction not permitted. — If a case is fully within the mischief to be remedied, and is even of the same class, and within the same reason as other cases enumerated, still, if not within the words, construction will not be permitted to bring it within the statute.' parte Evers, 29 Tex. App. 539, 16 S. 1; P. v. Gaulter, 149 111. 49, 36 N. E. W. 343. 576; Perry County v. Jefferson Co.. ' Cruse V. Aden, 127 111. 239, 20 94 111. 214. N. E. 73; Smith v. S., 28 Ind. 321; "Shirk v. P., 121 111. 65, 11 N. B. S. V. RojDinson, 33 Me. 564; Bradley 888; In re Swigert, 119 111. 88. V. P., 8 Colo. 599, 9 Pac. 783; Pierce 6 N. B. 469; Canadian Bank v. Mc- V. S., 13 N. H. 536. Crea, 106 111. 289; Swigart v. P., 154 'Soby V. P., 134 111. 71, 25 N. E. 111. 289, 40 N. E. 432; U. S. v. Chase, 109; Bobel v. P., 173 111. 23, 50 N. E. 135 U. S. 255, 10 S. Ct. 756, 8 Am. C. 322; Townsend v. S., 92 Ga. 732, 19 R. 654; S. v. Black, 75 Wis. 491, 44 S. B. 55, 9 Am. C. R. 300; Strlbling N. W. 635; S. v. Bryant, 90 Mo. 535, v. Prettyman, 57 111. 371; Wright v. 2 S. W. 836; Lippman v. P., 175 111. P., 101 111. 131; Cruse v. Aden, 127 104, 51 N. B. 872. 111. 237, 20 N. E. 73; Zarresseller v. ' Sutton v. P., 145 111. 285, 34 N. E. P., 17 111. 102; S. V. Smith, 13 Kan. 420; Huddleston v. Francis, 124 111. 274; Parrell v. S., 54 N. J. L. 421, 24 195, 16 N. B. 243; City of Chicago Atl. 725; S. v. Robinson, 33 Me. 564; v. Phcenix Ins. Co., 126 111. 280, 18 Smith v. P., 47 N. Y. 303. N. E. 668. " Cohn V. P., 149 111. 486, 37 N. E. « Bish. Stat. Cr., § 220; S. T. Gra- 60; U. S. V. Palmer, 3 Wheat. (U. ham, 38 Ark. 519, 4 Am. C. R. 277; S.) 631; Williams v. Williams, 8 N. 2 Hawk. P. C. 188. y. 535; Myer v. Car Co., 102 U. S. 656 hughes' criminal law. § 253T § 2537. Statute construed — ^Eule applied. — A statute is as follows r "That if any person shall receive or buy any goods or chattels, that shall have been stolen or taken by robbers, with intent to defraud the owners, or shall harbor or conceal any thief or robber, knowing him or her to be such, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." The first clause of this statute was construed to include thieves as well as robbers — to meet the legislative intent.® Article IV. Implied Authority. § 2538. Implied authority to assess fine. — When the legislature ex- cludes the power of the court to impose a fine of less than one hundred dollars, it, by implication, authorizes the exercise of power to impose a fine of more than that sum.^" § 2539. "May" and "shall" construed. — The word "may," means "shall," whenever the rights of the public or of third persons depend upon the exercise of the power, or the performance of the duty" to which it refers.^^ Article V. Persons Included. § 2540. Person includes corporation. — The word "person," will include the names of corporations, the state or United States, when reference is made in a statute to the person or persons injured or de- frauded.^^ § 2541. "County clerk" — "Clerk of county court."— By statute the county clerk is made the clerk of the county court. The words, "county clerk," shall be held to include "clerk of the county court," and the words, "clerk of the county court," to include county clerk.^' Article VI. Statutes with Two Meanings. § 2542. Statute with two meanings. — If a statute admits equally of two constructions, that which is more favorable to the defendant is to be preferred; and when the statute is silent as to the place of im- prisonment, there being a county jail for persons convicted of mis- •Schriedley v. S., 23 Ohio St. 130, Amedy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 392; Ochs 2 Green C. R. 531. v. P., 124 111. 399, 413, 16 N. B. 662. "Hawkins v. P., 106 111. 633; See § 2524. Drake v. S., 5 Tex. App. 649. " Tucker v. P., 122 111. 591, 13 " James v. Dexter, 112 111. 49.1. N. B. 809. "S. v. Herold, 9 Kan. 194; U. S. v. § 2543 CONSTKUCTION. 657 demeanors and a penitentiary for those convicted of higher crimes, the former, rendering the punishment less severe, must be selected.^* Aeticle VII. Statutes of Other States- § 2543. Adopting statute of other states. — It is a rule that when the legislature adopts substantially the statute of another state, it is presumed also to adopt the construction previously given by the courts of that state, unless such construction is inconsistent with the spirit and policy of the law.^^ Article VIII. E'epbal op Common Law. § 2544. Statute, when repeals common law. — A statute revising an entire subject-matter repeals the common law as to that matter, but a statute only repeals the common law as to a particular crime when it covers the whole ground. If both the statute and the common law can consistently take effect together, they are to be construed as con- current, and the statute is cumulative.^* Article IX. Equitable Construction. § 2545. Statute shall be construed equitably. — A strict construc- tion is not violated by giving the words of the statute a reasonable meaning, according to the sense in which they were intended ; a statute for the good of the public, though penal, ought to receive an equitable construction.^^ Article X. Law of Procedure. §2546. Law of procedure — Strict construction. — The rule of strict construction relating to penal statutes has no application, as a rule, to statutes of procedure.^* "Brooks V. P., 14 Colo. 413, 24 nings v. Com., 17 Pick. (Mass.) 80; Pac. 553; St. Louis v. Goebel, 32 Mo. Com. v. King, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 115; 295; Homer v. S., 1 Or. 267; S. v. S. v. Norton, 23 N. J. L. 33; "Wood v. Crowley, 60 Me. 103; Kent v. S., 8 Com., 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 213; Beard Blackf. (Ind.) 163; U. S. v. Garret- v. S., 74 Md. 130, 21 Atl. 700. son, 42 Fed. 22 " Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111. 71, 45 "Streeter v. P., 69 111. 598, citing N. E. 303; Bish. Stat. Cr., § 200. Rigg V. Wilton, 13 111. 15; Campbell See Harding v. P., 10 Colo. 387, 15 V. Quinlan, 3 Scam. (111.) 288. Pac. 727. "Com. v. Cooley, 10 Pick. (Mass.) " S. v. Chadbourne, 74 Me. 506. 37; S. V. Wilson, 43 N. H. 415; Jen- HUGHES' C. L.— 42 CHAPTEE LXX. STATUTES. !Aet. I. Eepeal Generally, II. New Statute Eepeals Old,^ . . III. Indeterminate Sentence Statute, IV. Statute, on Second Offense, . . V. Validity of Certain Statutes, . VI. Proving Validity of Statute, . §§ 3547-2551 § 2552 § 2553 § 2554 §§ 2555-2556 § 2557 Article I. Eepeal Geiteeally. § 2547. Repeal by implication not favored. — ^Eepeal of statutes by implication is not favored ; such repeal will be recognized only where the two statutes are repugnant.^* § 2548. General law not repealed. — The legislature, by conferring upon an incorporated city or town the power to sell, regulate or pro- hibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, does not by implication repeal the general law on the same subject.^" § 2549. Bepeal by amendatory act. — Where an amendatory act de- (clares that a certain section of the amended act "shall be so amended that it shall read as follows," and then proceeds to make a distinct provision on the subject, it will operate to repeal the section of the amended act named, substituting therefor the amendatory seetion.^^ ^°Swigart v. P., 154 111. 296, 40 N. E. 432; P. v. Gustin, 57 Mich. 407, 6 Am. C. R. 291, 24 N. W. 156; Cooley Const. Llm. 182; S. v. Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 32 Pac. 930, 9 Am. C. R. 251; Ryan v. Com., 80 Va. 385, 6 Am. C. R. 348; Sifred v. Com., 104 Pa. St. 179, 4 Am. C. R. 305; Com. v. Duff, 87 Ky. 586, 10 Ky. L. 617, 9 S. W. 816. =» Gardner v. P., 20 111. 434; Sloan V. S., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 361; Baldwin V. Green, 10 Mo. 410. "^Goodall V. P., 123 111. 389, 15 N. B. 171; P. V. Young, 38 111. 490; Kepley v. P. 123 111. 378, 13 N. B. 512; P. V. Supervisor, 67 N. Y. 109; Blakemore v. Dolan, 50 Ind. 194; Goodno V. City of Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127. (658) § 2550 STATUTES. 659 § 2550. Repeal in part — New penalty. — ^A statute imposing a new- penalty for an offense is an implied repeal of so much of a prior statute as imposed a different penalty for the same offense.^^ § 2551. Repeal when repugnant. — One statute will not repeal a former unless there is such a repugnancy between the provisions of the two statutes that they can not stand together.^^ Aeticle II. New Statute Eepbals Old. § 2552. New statute repeals old. — A new statute, designed to cover the whole subject-matter of a former statute, will operate as a repeal of the former, without a repealing clause or section in the new statute.^* Article III. Indeterminate Sentence Statute. § 2553. Indeterminate sentence law, valid. — The indeterminate sentence act of Illinois, empowering penitentiary commissioners to provide for the temporary release of prisoners on parol, is valid.^^ Article IV. Statute, on Second Offense. § 2554. Statute as to second offense. — A statute providing that any person convicted a second time of the crime of petit larceny shall be deemed guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state prison, will be construed to include a first conviction of petit larceny had prior to the enactment of such statute, and can not be said to be ex post facto in its operation.^* =" Sullivan v. P., 15 111. 234; Nich- 99; Com. v. Kimball, 21 Pick. (Mass.) ols V. Squire, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 168; 373. Com. V. Kimball, 21 Pick. (Mass.) "Wagoner v. S., 90 Ind. 504; Cul- 373; Rex v. Caton, 4 Burr. 2026; len v. S., 42 Conn. 55; S. v. Rollins, Leighton v. Walker, 9 N. H. 59; P. v. 77 Me. 120; P. v. Bussell, 59 Mich. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104. See S. v. Wish, 104, 26 N. W. 306; S. v. Campbell, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. 44 Wis. 529, 3 Am. C. R. 313. See P. ='Barr v. P., 103 111. 112; Kepley v. Jaehne, 103 N. Y. 182, 8 N. B. 374; V. P., 123 111. 367, 13 N. E. 512; S. v. Ochs v. P., 124 111. 399, 413, 16 N. Archibald, 43 Minn. 328, 45 N. W. E. 662; Com. v. Ballou, 124 Mass. 606. See P. v. Piatt, 67 Cal. 21, 7 26; Seifried v. Com., 101 Pa. St. Am. C. R. 501, 7 Pac. 1; Sykes v. 200; P. v. Furman, 85 Mich. 110, 48 P., 127 111. 129, 19 N. E. 705; Ryan v. N. W. 169. Com., 80 Va. 385, 6 Am. C. R. 346; "^^ George v. P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. Bish. Stat. Cr., § 155; 1 McClain Cr. E. 741. See P. v. Illinois State Re- L., § 91; Dingman v. P., 51 111. 279; formatory, 148 111. 413, 36 N. E. 76. Mullen V. P., 31 111. 445 ; Sullivan v. =» Ex parte Gutierrez, 45 Cal. 429, P., 15 111. 234; Hayes v. S., 55 Ind. 2 Green C. R. 423; P. v. Mortimer. 660 hughes' criminal law. § 2555 Aeticle v. Validity of Certain Statutes. § 2555. Butter and cheese factory — Statute. — "An act to require butter and cheese factories on the co-operation plan to give bonds, and to prescribe the penalties for the violation thereof," is not unconsti- tutional.^^ § 2556. Statute on trade-marks valid. — An act to protect associa- tions, unions of workingmen, and persons, in their labels, trade-marks and forms of advertising, is not special legislation, in violation of the constitution.^* Article VII. Proving Validity op Statute, § 2557. Proving validity of statute. — Eesort may be had to the journals of the two houses to ascertain the steps that were taken by each of the bodies in the passage of the act, and thereby determine whether it was passed in conformity to the constitutional require- ments.^* 46 Cal. 114, 2 Green C. R. 428; Ross' =«Cohn v. P., 149 111. 486, 37 N. E. Case, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 165; Rand v. 60. Com., 9 Gratt. (Va.) 738. » Robertson v. P., 20 Colo. 279, 9 " Hawthorn v. P., 109 111. 312. On Am. C. R. 288, 38 Pac. 326. See P. adulteration of dairy products, stat- v. DeWolf, 62 111. 253; P. v. Loewen- ute sustained: Powell v. Com., 114 thai, 93 111. 191. Pa. St. 265. 7 Am. C. R. 32, 7 Atl. 913. CHAPTER LXXI. JURISDICTION. Art. I. Jurisdiction Defined, § 2558 II. Not Conferred by Consent, .... § 2559 III. Waiving Jury, § 2560 IV. Jurisdiction by Appeal, § 2561 V. Jurisdiction by Fraud, §§ 2562-3564 VI. Wrong Action, § 2565 VII. Statute Invalid, § 2566 VIII. Jurisdiction Lost, §§ 2567-2568 IX. Sentence, When, §§ 2569-2571 X. Jurisdiction Suspended, .....§§ 2572-2574 XI. State or Federal Courts, §§ 2575-2579 XII. What Court or County, §§ 2580-2581 XIII. Facts Determining Jurisdiction, ... § 3582 XIV. Judgment Only Voidable, .... § 3583 Article I. Jurisdiction Defined. § 2558. jurisdiction defined. — The power to hear and determine a cause is jurisdiction.^ Article II. Not Conferred by Consent. § 2559. Jurisdiction not conferred by consent. — It is a maxim in the law that consent can never confer jurisdiction — that is, the con- sent of the parties can not empower a court to act upon subjects which are not submitted to its determination and judgment by the law.^ It is the duty of the courts to see that the constitutional rights "Kelly V. P., 115 111. 589, 4 N. E. B. 563; Cooley Const. Llm., 398; 644. Peak v. P., 71 111. 278; Foley v. P., "Harris v. P., 128 111. 591, 21 N. Breese (111.) 58; In re Webb, 89 Wis. (661) 662 hughes' criminal law. § 2560 of a defendant in a criminal case shall not be violated, however neg- ligent he may be in raising the objection. It is in such eases, em- phatically, that consent should not be allowed to give jurisdiction.* Aeticle III. Waiving Jury. § 2560. Jury can not be waived. — An indictment in a felony cas& can not be waived ; nor can a jury be waived in a felony case even by express consent. These are jurisdictional questions.* Article IV. Jurisdiction by Appeal. § 2561. Appeal confers jurisdiction. — The defendant, having been convicted in a justice court for violation of a village ordinance, took an appeal to the circuit court, as provided by statute. By filing his appeal bond he thereby entered his appearance in the circuit court and waived all defects in the process, as well as in the service of or want of service before the justice, even though he made his motion in the justice court to quash the process afld for a dismissal of the suit.° Article V. Jurisdiction by Fraud. § 2562. If obtained by fraud — ^Void. — Where jurisdiction is ob- tained by fraud it is not actual, but only apparent jurisdiction, and may be impeached.® § 2563. Void affidavit, no jurisdiction. — An affidavit which is so defective that it fails to charge the prisoner with a crime will not con- fer jurisdiction on a justice of the peace to issue a warrant.'' 354, 62 N. W. 177, 9 Am. C. R. 704; "Village of Coulterville v. Gillen, S. V. Morgan, 62 Ind. 35, 3 Am. C. 72 111. 602. R. 153. "Caswell v. Caswell, 120 111. 377, »Ter. V. Ah Wah, 4 Mont. 149, 1 384, 11 N. B. 342; Adams v. Adams. Pac. 732, 4 Am. C. R. 578; Williams 51 N. H. 388; Edson v. Edson, 108 V. S., 12 Ohio St. 622; Brown v. S., Mass. 590; Graves v. Graves, 36 Iowa 16 Ind. 496; P. v. O'Nell, 48 Cal. 258; 310. Bell V. S., 44 Ala. 393; Bowles v. S., 'Housh v. P., 75 111. 491; S. v. 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 360; Carpenter v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452. All that part of S., 4 How. (Miss.) 163. an affidavit which precedes the *4 Bl. Com. 349; Harris v. P., 128 words, "who says," is mere recital 111. 585, 21 N. B. 563; Morgan v. P., and forms no part of that which is 136 111. 161, 26 N. B. 651; Bx parte sworn to by the affiant: Maynard Bain, 121 U. S. 1, 7 S. Ct. 781; v. P., 135 111. 430, 25 N. E. 740; Brown Jurisdiction, §§ 102, 103; Miller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 58 Lemons v. S., 4 W. Va. 755, 1 Green Wis. 310, 17 N. W. 130; E. D. P- .C. R. 666, 6 Cr. L. Mag. 189. See v. S., 18 Pla. 175. §§ 2583, 2979. § 2564 JURISDICTION. 663 § 2564. Justice proceeding, when no bar. — The accused, without any complaint having been made against him, went before a justice of the peace and became his own prosecutor without any notice to the state or its representatives, for a misdemeanor (gaming), and con- fessed his guilt and submitted to a judgment of fine of one hundred dollars. Held that such proceeding was void and was no bar to an indictment for the same transaction.^ Article VI. Wrong Action. §2565. Wrong action, no jurisdiction. — Where the statute pro- vides for a penalty for a violation, to be recovered in an action of debt, one-half of the same for the use of the informer and the other half for the use of the county, it is a qui tarn action, and should be brought in the name of the informer or county, and not in the name of the people.^" When the statute provides for the recovery of a penalty by action of debt in the name of the people, the court can not take jurisdiction by indictment.^^ Article VII. Statute Invalid. § 2566. When statute invalid. — The power to render judgment in a criminal case is limited to a constitutional trial. The supreme court of the United States says : "It is difficult to see why a convic- tion and punishment under an unconstitutional law is more violative of a person's constitutional right than an unconstitutional conviction under a valid law."^^ Article VIII. Jurisdiction Lost. § 2567. When jurisdiction lost. — An adjournment of a cause by a justice of the peace on the plaintiff's motion, unsupported by affidavit, without the consent of the defendant, where the statute requires a showing to be made under oath, loses the jurisdiction.^^ Where the prosecution holds and continues a cause beyond the statutory limit • Drake v. S., 68 Ala. 510, 4 Am. " Brown Jurisdiction, § 97, pp. C. R. 321. 249-251. But see P. v. Jonas, 17S •°Hlgby V. P., 4 Scam. (III.) 166; 111. 316, 50 N. E. 1051. Carle v. P., 12 111. 285; 2 Hawk. P. "VanFleet Col. Attack, § 675, clt- C. 370, § 20. ing Grace v. Mitchell, 31 Wis. 533. " Carle v. P., 12 111. 285. 664 hughes' criminal law. § 2568 against the objection of the defendant, the indictment becomes null and void, and the defendant is consequently entitled to be discharged.** § 2568. Suspending sentence indefinitely. — The indefinite suspen- sion of sentence on a plea of guilty or conviction, without continuing the cause for further adjudication, loses the jurisdiction, and the court will not have the power to sentence the accused at a future term of the court.*" The power to suspend sentence at common law is as- serted by writers of acknowledged authority and by numerous ad- judged cases.*^ Article IX. Sentence, When. § 2569. Sentence, at once — Same term. — Upon a conviction or pleia of guilty it is the duty of the court to sentence the accused and pro- nounce judgment at that time, unless, upon motion for a new trial, in arrest of judgment, or for other cause, the case is continued for fur- ther adjudication. The court can not suspend sentence indefinitely.*' § 2570. Sentence after term expires. — The court has no power to sentence a prisoner after the term expires at which conviction was had, where no continuance was had for that purpose, the court hav- ing lost jurisdiction of the cause.*' § 2571. Term of court abolished. — The August term having been abolished by statute, the court would not be authorized to try the ac- cused at that time.*' Article X. Jurisdiction Suspended. § 2572. Writ of error suspends jurisdiction. — The jurisdiction of the trial court over a cause is not taken away by the allowance of a writ of error, but its power to act in a cause is only stayed or sus- " Brooks v. P., 88 III. 328. P. v. Morrisette, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) "P. v. Allen, 155 111. 63, 39 N. E. 118, 2 Am. C. R. 475; "Weaver v. 568; Weaver v. P., 33 Mich. 296; P. P., 33 Mich. 296, 1 Am. C. R. 552. V. Morrisette, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) "Com. v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, 118, 2 Am. C. R. 475. 23 Am. R. 326; P. v. Allen, 155 ""P. V. Court of Sessions, 141 N. 111. 63, 39 N. E. 568; P. v. Whitson, Y. 288, 36 N. E. 386, 9 Am. C. R. 74 111. 20; Brown Jurisdiction, 273; 441. Abbott Cr. Brief, § 155. " P. V. Allen, 155 111. 65, 39 N. E. " Goodall v. P., 123 111. 394, 15 N. E68. See also In re Webb, 89 Wis. E. 171. 354, 62 N. W. 177, 9 Am. C. R. 703; § 2573 JURISDICTION. 665 pended during the pendency of the writ of error.^" A statute fixing a limit of time or terms of court within which a prisoner shall be tried has no application, and is not in operation during the pendency of a writ of error in a court of review; and in case of reversal, such statute will not be in operation during any delay resulting from the pendency of the writ of error. The production of the mandate of the court reversing the cause is essential to authorize the trial court to proceed to a new trial.^"^ § 2573. Two punishments, voidahle only. — The judgment having been rendered by a court which had jurisdiction of the party and of the offense, on a valid verdict, the error of the court in imposing the two punishments mentioned in the statute, when it had only the al- ternative of one of them, did not make the judgment wholly void.^^ § 2574. TTnlawful arrest. — The legality of the arrest of a fugitive from justice in a foreign country is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction; no matter by what means the fugitive may have been brought from such foreign country, whether lawful or unlawful, the court has jurisdiction.^* Aeticle XI. State oh Federal Codets. § 2575. State or federal court. — Where a state court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction, the tribunal which first gets it holds it, to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is fully performed, and the jurisdiction invoked is exhausted; and this rule applies alike in both civil and criminal cases.** § 2576. Federal — not state court. — ^A state court has no jurisdic- tion to try an officer of a national bank for the embezzlement of the funds of such bank.** The state court has jurisdiction to try and ""Perteet v. P., 70 111. 171; Black- == Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. erby v. P., 5 Glim. (111.) 267. See S.) 366, 2 Green C. R. 145; Taylor Marzen v. P., 190 111. 86. v. Carryl, 20 How. (U. S.) 584; "aMarzen v. P., 190 111. 85, 86. Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 400; =^Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) Ex parte Baldwin, 69 Iowa 502, 29 163, 2 Green C. R. Ill; Miller v. N. W. 428; S. v. Williford, 91 N. Pinkie, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 374. C. 529; S. v. Chinault, 55 Kan. 326, "Ker V. P., 110 111. 633; Ker v. 40 Pac. 662. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 S. Ct. 225; =*Gom. v. Ketner, 92 Pa. St. 372, S. v. Ross, 21 Iowa 467; Cook v. 37 Am. R. 692. Compare Com. v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 13 S. Ct. 40. See Tenney, 97 Mass. 50. Compare also §§ 2657, 3419. 666 hughes' criminal law. § 2577 punish one who forges a draft on a national bank of the United States, although such person may be a bookkeeper of the bank, and may be liable to punishment under the United States statute for the same aet.^° When property is stolen from a receiver appointed by the federal court, a' state court has concurrent jurisdiction to try the offense.'"' § 2577. State or federal court. — The rule is that so long as the fed- eral government has not declared the act an offense against its laws, it is competent for the states to declare it an offense and punish there- for. But when, as to a matter within the competency of the United States, congress undertakes to legislate, and covers the whole subject, the jurisdiction of the state is or may thereafter be denied.^^ § 2578. Two states involved — Goods stolen. — If the criminal act done in one state was intended to take effect in another, and did actually take effect in the latter, as intended, then the court in the latter state has jurisdiction of the offense.^^ If the fatal stroke or poison be given in one state, and death ensue in another state, the offender shall be tried by the court in the state where the stroke or poison was given.^° If a person receives stolen property in the state of Kansas, knowingly, he may be tried in that state, although the property was originally stolen in another state.*" § 2579. State and federal courts concurrent. — The state courts, in the exercise of the general police power of the state, will have juris- Hoke V. P., 122 111. 511, 13 N. B. 823; 23, 27 Pac. 523. See Com. v. Parker, Com. V. Felton, 101 Mass. 204. 165 Mass. 526, 43 N. E. 499; Queen ^Hoke V. P., 122 111. 517, 13 N. v. Holmes, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 23, 4 E. 823; Com. v. Luberg, 94 Pa. St. Am. C. R. 591; S. v.'Chapin, 17 Ark. 85. See Com. v. Tenney, 97 Mass. 565. 50. Contra, Com. v. Felton, 101 ^ Stout v. S., 76 Md. 317, 25 Atl. Mass. 204. ■ 299, 9 Am. C. R. 398; 1 Hale P. C. ""S. V. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 42 Pac. 426; S. v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; 127. 2 Hawk. P. C. 120, § 13; Klr'kham "S. v. Bardwell, 72 Miss. 535, 18 v. P., 170 111. 12, 48 N. B. 465; S. v. So. 377, 10 Am. C. R. 74; P. v. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475; Ex parte Mc- White, 34 Cal. 183; Fox v. Ohio, 5 Neeley, 36 W. Va. 84, 14 S. E. 436; How. (U. S.) 410; Moore v. Illinois, U. S. v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey 498, 47 14 How. (U. S.) 13. Am. R. 247; S. v. Hall, 114 N. C. =»S. V. Morrow, 40 S. C. 221, IS 909, 19 S. B. 602; Tyler v. P., 8 S. E. 853, 9 Am. C. R. 42; P. v. Mich. 320. Rathbun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 534; *> S. v. Suppe, 60 Kan. 566, 57 Pac. Noyes v. S., 41 N. J. L. 418; 1 Bish. 106. Cr. L., § 110; P. V. Staples, 91 Cal. § 2580 JURISDICTION. 667 diction of certain offenses, such as counterfeiting and the like, though punishable under and by the laws of the United States.^^ Article XII. What Court or County, §2580. -Circuit or county court. — The county court, in Illinois, in certain cases, can not have exclusive,- but only concurrent, juris- diction with the circuit courts.^^ §2581. County of jurisdiction. — A court of one county has no jurisdiction to indict and try persons for the violation of law in the state in another county, and such jurisdiction can not be conferred by statute.'^ Article XIII. Facts Determining Jurisdiction. § 2582. Tacts presumed if record silent — Fact may be shown. — If the record is silent as to the jurisdictional facts, they will be pre- sumed to have been duly established, but such presumption may be rebutted by extrinsic evidence.^* In all cases when the facts going to the jurisdiction do not appear of record, the party complaining may, for the purpose of impeaching the jurisdiction, show the facts as they actually existed.'^ Article XIV. Judgment Only Voidable. ' § 2583. Judgment only voidable, if jury waived. — Although a de- fendant in a criminal case can not, by consent or otherwise, waive a trial by jury, yet, if he does so, and consents and is tried by the judge of the court, the judgment rendered will not be void, but only void- able, the court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and person. The error committed in such case consists in the improper exercise of jurisdiction, and does not proceed from a want of jurisdiction.^" "P. V. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 22 tra, S. v. Pugsley, 75 Iowa 744, 8 Pac. 190, 8 Am. C. R. 150; U. S. v. Am. C. R. 103, 38 N. W. 498. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Com. v. ^Hurd Habeas Corpus, citing 1 Fuller, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 313; Dash- Smith Leading Cases (5th ed.) 816. ing V. S., 78 Ind. 357; Prigg v. Penn- ^ Brown Jurisdiction, 71-73. See sylvania, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 625; Fox In re Rolfs, 30 Kan. 758, 1 Pac. 523, V. Ohio, 5 How. (U. S.) 410; Eells v. 4 Am. C. R. 446. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 512. '"Kelly v. P., 115 111. 589, 4 N. '^Myersv. P., 67 111. 509; Weather- E. 644. See also Lowery v. How- lord V. P., 67 111. 521. ard, 103 Ind. 440, 3 N. E. 124; Ex ''Buckrice v. P., 110 111. 32. Con- parte Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193. See § 2560. CHAPTER LXII. Aet. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. vri. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. JEOPARDY. Once Acquitted, Bar, . . . Misdemeanors Included, . . Two Governments Involved, When Jeopary Commences, When Same OfEense, . . . Jeopardy, How Eemoved, Several Violations, One Act, Murder, When Barred, . . Several Counts Involved, Several Forged Checks, . . Included Offenses, .... One Offense, Two Indictments, Shooting or Striking, . . Principal and Accessory, Defective Indictment, . . Conviction in Wrong Place, Conviction, When No Bar, . Different Offenses, . . . Jury Unlawfully Discharged, Dismissing Cause, .... Verdict, Unlawful, . . . Nolle Pros, of Indictment, . Preliminary Examination, . Sickness Stopping Trial, Illegal Verdict, Conviction by Defendant's Fraud, Increasing Penalty, .... 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588-2589 2590-2592 2593-2594 2595 2596 2597 2598-2601 2602 2603 2604 2605-2606 2607-2608 2609 2610-2613 2614-2617 2618-2619 2620-2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626-2627 2628 Article I. Once Acquitted, Bar. § 2584. Once fairly acquitted. — The prevailing current of decision in this country, if not in England, is to the effect that no person who (668) §, 2585 JEOPAEDY. 669 has once been fairly acquitted by a jury upon a proceeding purely criminal can again be put upon trial without his consent.^ Article II. Misdemeahtoes Included. § 2585. Misdemeanors included — Common law reaffirmed. — The constitutional provision of Illinois, that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense," includes all misdemeanors where the penalty is a fine only, recoverable in justice courts, as well as courts of record, such as penalties for violating the fish law, liquor law, and the like.^ The constitutional provision that "no person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of his life or limb," is but a reaffirmance of the common law.* Article III. Two Governments Involved. §2586. Same act — Offense against two governments, — The same act may be an offense or transgression of the laws of the state or territory, and of the United States, for which the offender is justly punishable, and a punishment for a violation of both laws would not be putting the violator twice in jeopardy for the same offense.* If a person violate the laws of the United States, the laws of the state and ordinances of a city or village by one act, he may be punished for each; a conviction on one is no bar to the others.^ 'S. V. Lee, 10 R. I. 494, 2 Green McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 22 Pac. 190, C. R. 380; Mount v. S., 14 Ohio 295; 8 Am. C. R. 150; Com. v. Fuller, 8 Com. V. Cummings, 3 Cush. (Mass.) Mete. (Mass.) 313; U. S. v. Lackey, 212; P. V. Webb, 38 Cal. 267; Day v. 99 Fed. 952. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 915; P. v. Com- "Wragg v. Penn Tp., 94 111. 18; ing, 2' Const. 1; S. v. Benham, 7 Robblns v. P., 95 111. 177; Gardner Conn. 414; 4 Bl. Com. 361; S. v. v. P., 20 111. 434; Hughes v. P., 8 Gooch, 60 Ark. 218, 29 S. W. 640. Colo. 536, 9 Pac. 50, 5 Am. C. R. 81; ' P. V. Miner, 144 111. 309, 33 N. E. Cooley Const. Lim. 199. See also S. 40; P. V. Royal, 1 Scam. (111.) 557; v. Sly, 4 Or. 277, 2 Am. C. R. 52; P. V. Dill, 1 Scam. (111.) 257; Berko- Moore v. P., 14 How. (U. S.) 13; witz v. U. S., 93 Fed. 452. S. v. Crummey, 17 Minn. 72; S. v. 'Freeland v. P., 16 111. 381; 4 BL Fourcade, 45 La. 717, 13 So. 187; Com. 335. Ex parte Hong Shen, 98 Cal. 681, 33 *Hoke V. P., 122 111. 517, 13 N. E. Pac. 799; Koch v. S., 53 Ohio St. 823; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. (U. 433, 41 N. B. 689; S. v. Stevens, 114 S.) 13; In re Murphy, 5 Wyom. 297, N. C. 873, 19 S. B. 861; S. v. Gustin, 40 Pac. 398, 9 Am. C. R. 127; P. v. 152 Mo. 108, 53 S. W. 421. 670 hughes' criminal law. § 2587 Article IV. When Jeopardy Commences. § 2587. Jeopardy attaches when jury sworn.; — Jeopardy attaches at the time the jury is sworn to try the cause, when all the prelimi- nary steps have been taken necessary to the trial.* Article V. When Same Offense. § 2588. Two indictmeiits, when bar. — "According to sound princi-' pie and the weight of sound authority, not only where each of two in- dictments contains all the necessary constituents of a compound of- fense, such as an aggravated assault, or an assault and battery, but where one contains them all and the other enough of them to consti- tute a minor offense, a conviction or acquittal upon either indictment will. Under the strict rule of former jeopardy, bar the other, provided that, by the law of the former, a conviction for the minor offense may be had upon the indictment for the major."' "If the first indictment were such that the prisoner could have been legally convicted upon it, by any legal evidence admissible, though sufficient evidence was not in fact adduced, his acquittal upon that indictment is a bar to the second indictment for the same offense."^ Where the facts charged in the second indictment would, if true, have procured a conviction on the first, then the plea of autre fois acquit is well pleaded, and if the evidence offered to prove the second indictment was competent on the first, then the first is a bar to the second.* § 2589. Identity of offense. — To entitle a defendant to the benefit of a plea of autre fois acquit, it must be upon a prosecution for the same identical act and crime, which may be shown by parol evidence.^" 'Weaver v. S., 83 Ind. 289, 4 Cr. «3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 36; L. Mag. 29; Ex parte McGehan, 22 Garvey's Case, 7 Colo. 384, 3 Pac. Ohio St. 442; Franklin v. S., 85 Ga. 903, 4 Am. C. R. 261; Com. v. Wade, 570, 11 S. B. 876, 8 Am. C. R. 292; 17 Pick. (Mass.) 396; Com. v. Rob- Hilands v. Com., Ill Pa. St. 1, 2 inson, 126 Mass. 259, 3 Am. C. R. Atl. 70, 6 Am. C. R. 340; Adams v. 147; Duncan v. Com., 6 Dana (Ky.) S., 99 Ind. '244, 4 Am. C. R. 311; 1 295; Wilson v. S., 24 Conn. 57; 4 Bish. Cr. L., § 1014; Alexander v. Bl. Com. 336. Com., 105 Pa. St. 1; Nolan v. S., • Durham v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 172; 55 Ga. 521, 21 Am. R. 281; S. v. Guedel v. P., 43 111. 230; Com. v. Sommers, 60 Minn. 90, 61 N. W. 907; Cunningham, 13 Mass. 245; P. v. Whltmore v. S., 43 Ark. 271; S. v. Warren, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 338; S. Paterno, 43 La. 514, 9 So. 442. ^ee v. Vines, 34 La. 1079, 4 Am. C. R. O'Brien v. Com., 6 Bush (Ky.) 563. 297; Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 'Franklin v. S., 85 Ga. 570, 11 S. 496; Rex v. Emden, 9 East 437. E. 876, 8 Am. C. R. 294. "Campbell v. P., 109 111. 572; § 2590 JEOPARDY. 671 Article VI. Jeopardy, How Removed. § 2590. New trial removes jeopardy — Also arrest of judgment. — If a new trial be granted on the defendant's application, this is in itself no bar to a second trial on the same or another indictment.^^ If the defendant cause the judgment to be arrested on motion, held not in jeopardy.^^ § 2591. Jeopardy removed by reversal. — A judgment of the trial court having been reversed by a court of review, the defendant may be tried again for the same offense.^' § 2592. Indictments, held to be the same. — Where two or more per- sons are named and described as a firm, to wit, "Irwin & Co.," in the first indictment, and "John Irwin & Co." in the second indictment, the charge is the same offense, and a trial on the first is a bar to the second. The description is surplusage.^* Article VII. Several Violations, One Act. § 2593. Murder — ^Killing two in one act. — Where the defendant killed two persons by the same act, a conviction on an indictment charging the killing of one is a bar to an indictment for killing the other.^' Swalley v. P., 116 111. 249, 4 N. E. Scam. (III.) 363; 4 Bl. Com. 393); 379; Freeland v. P., 16 111. 382; 3 P. v. Eppinger, 109 Cal. 294, 41 Pac. Greenl. Ev., § 36; 4 Bl. Com. 336; 1037; S. v. Owen, 78 Mo. 367; Brown 1 Chltty Cr. L. 452; Burns v. P., 1 v. S., 109 Ga. 570, 34 S. E. 1031; Tay- Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 182; P. v. Saun- lor v. S., 110 Ga. 150, 35 S. B. 161. ders, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 196; Reg. "McGinn v. S., 46 Neb. 427, 65 v. Morris, 10 Cox C. C. 480; Wallace N. W. 46; S. v. Rhodes, 112 N. C. v. S., 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713. See 857, 17 S. E. 164. See Com. v. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 197. Murphy, 174 Mass. 369, 54 N. E. 860, "Gannon v. P., 127 111. 522, 21 N. 48 L. R. A. 393. E. 525; S. V. Blaisdell, 59 N. H. 328; "Durham v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) S. V. Hart, 33 Kan. 218, 6 Pac. 288, 173. 6 Am. C. R. 269; Wharton Cr. PI. & ^"Clem v. S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. Pr. (9th ed.), § 435; P. v. Eppinger, R. 369, 2 Green C. R. 687; Woodford 109 Cal. 294, 41 Pac. 1037; U. S. v. v. P., 62 N. Y. 117, 40 Am. R. 463; Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 16 S. Ct. 1192; Kannon v. S., 10 Lea (Tenn.) 390; S. V. Bowman, 94 Iowa 228, 62 N. W. Gunter v. S., Ill Ala. 23, 20 So. 632; 759. Ben v. S., 22 Ala. 9. Contra, P. v. "Phillips v. P., 88 111. 163 (citing Majors, 65 Cal. 138, 3 Pac. 597, 5 Am. Com. V. Hardy, 2 Mass. 303; Bedee C. R. 489; P. v. Alibez, 49 Cal. 452, v. P., 73 111. 322; Gerard v. P., 3 1 Am. C. R. 345. 672 hughes' criminal law. § 2594 § 2594. Shooting at different person. — Where the defendant is con- victed of shooting at one person with intent to kjU, while the facts show that he intended to shoot another, the conviction and sentence are a bar to further prosecution.^* Article VIII. Muedek, When Barbed. § 2595. Murder, when barred. — The accused having been convicted of manslaughter on an indictment for murder, and having been grant- ed a new trial, could not be again tried on the charge of murder; his conviction of manslaughter was in legal efEeet an acquittal of murder.^^ Article IX. Several Counts Involved. § 2596, Conviction on one count acquits on others. — ^Where the in- dictment contains several distinct counts, and a conviction on some of the counts and the verdict are silent as to the others, this is an acquit- tal on the counts on which the verdict is, silent.^' The defendants were tried on an indictment containing two distinct felonies, burglary ' and grand larceny, alleged in separate counts in the indictment, which, under the statute, were not subject to the doctrine of merger, and they were convicted of burglary. The verdict was set aside and the de- fendants granted a new trial. On the second trial they were con- victed of grand larceny. Held error, they having been acquitted on that charge on the first trial.^' " S. V. Pujo, 41 La. 346, 6 So. 339. " Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531; Stoltz Contra. Baker v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 879, v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 168; P. v. Whlt- 47 S. W. 864. son, 74 111. 26; Keedy v. P., 84 111. "Barnett v. P., 54 111. 331; Bren- 569; Bell v. S., 48 Ala. 684, 2 Green nan v. P., 15 111. 518; Johnson v. S., C. R. 627; Hurt v. S., 25 Miss. 378; 29 Ark. 31, 2 Am. C. R. 430; Hurt Mount v. S., 14 Ohio 295; P. v. Gil- V. S., 25 Miss. 378; S. v. Tweedy, 11 more, 4 Gal. 376; Shepherd v. P., 25 Iowa 351; Guenther v. P., 24 N. Y. N. Y. 406; S. v. Martin, 30 Wis. 223; 100; Clem v. S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. P. v. Bowling, 84 N. Y. 478; S. v. R. 369, 2 Green 0. R. 690; Jordan McNaught, 36 Kan. 624, 14 Pac. 277; V. S., 22 Ga. 558; S. v. Ross, 29 Mo. S. v. Kattlemann, 35 Mo. 105; S. v. 32; Jones v. S., 13 Tex. 168; S. v. Severson, 79 Iowa 750, 45 N. W. 305; Martin, 30 Wis. 216; Slaughter v. George v. S., 59 Neb. 163, 80 N. W. S., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 412; P. v. 486. Gilmore, 4 Cal. 378; S. v. Lessing, "Bell v. S., 48 Ala. 684, 2 Green 16 Minn. 75; Mixon v. S., 35 Tex. C. R. 627. Contra, Brown v. U. S. Cr. 458, 34 S. W. 290; S. v. Belden, (Ind. Ter., 1899), 52 S. W. 56. 33 Wis. 120, 2 Green C. R. 649. 12597 JEOPARDY. 673 Article X. Several Forged Checks. §-2597. Possession of several forged checks. — Having possession of several forged bank notes of different banks at the same time, with, iatent to pass them, is but one offense.'" Article XI. Included Offenses. §2598. Part of libelous words. — An acquittal on an indictment «n part of the libelous words of an article is a bar to a trial on the «ther libelous words of the same article in another indictment.''^ § 2599. Conviction of included offense. — When the greater and les- ser offenses are both included in the same count, a conviction on the lesser is a bar to the greater.^^ Where, under the indictment or eomplaint, there could have been no conviction of the greater offense, then a conviction of the lesser is no bar to the greater. ^^ § 2600. Conviction of lesser offense. — To convict of an assault, when the indictment is for a felony, the indictment must be for a felony which necessarily includes an assault. It is not necessary that it should be expressly charged on- the face of the indictment.^* § 2601. Conviction of second degree. — If the defendant be convict- ed of murder in the second degree the verdict in effect is an acquittal of the first degree.^' Article XII. One Offense, Two Indictments. § 2602. One offense — Two indictments. — If a person commit an offense with intent to aid two prisoners to escape, one of whom had been convicted of a misdemeanor, the other of a felony, and such person be indicted in two indictments for attempting to release each prisoner, a conviction on one indictment is a bar to the other.^" '' S. V. Benham, 7 Conn. 414. 1 Am. C. R. 511; Reg. v. Reid, 2 Den. ='P. v. Stephens, 79 Cal. 428, 21 C. C. 94. Pac. 856. '">S. V. Murphy, 13 Wash. 229, 43 ^Barnett v. P., 54 111. 331; S. v. Pac. 44; S. v. Helm, 92 Iowa 540, Brannon, 55 Mo. 63, 2 Green C. R. 61 N. W. 246; Gelding v. S., 31 Fla. 608; P. V. McGowan, 17 Wend. (N. 262, 12 So. 525. Contra, S. v. Brad-' Y.) 386. ley, 67 Vt. 465, 32 Atl. 238; P. v. ''Whar. Cr. Bv. (8th ed.), § 585; Keefer, 65 Cal. 232, 3 Pac. 818. Severln v. P., 37 111. 422. '° Hurst v. S., 86 Ala. 604, 6 So. "Reg. v. Smith, 34 U. C. Q. B. 552, 120. 674 hughes' CKIMINAL LAW.' §2603 Article XIII. Shooting or STRiKiBrGf. §2603. Killing by shooting — Ot striking. — ^An indictment for murder by shooting from a gun by means of powder and shot is not a bar to an indictment for killing the same person by ^riking the de- ceased upon the head with a gun.^^ Article XIV. Principal and Accessory. §2604. Principal and accessory after fact. — The acquittal of a party indicted as a principal is no bar to an indictment against him as an accessory after the fact, and vice versa.^^ Article XV. Defective Indictment. § 2605. Acquittal on defective indictment. — A defendant having been tried and acquitted by the verdict of a jury on a defective in- dictment, to which he pleaded not guilty, can not be again tried, hav- ing been once in legal jeopardy.^" § 2606. ftuashing defective indictment. — Where a defective indict- ment is quashed, even after a jury has been impaneled, the defendant may again be put on trial for the same offense on another indict- ment.^" Article XVI. Conviction in Wrong Place. § 2607. Conviction without jurisdiction — In wrong state. — The •conviction and punishment of a person in one sovereignty is no bar to his conviction and punishment in another in which the offense was actually committed.'^ The accused committed an offense (assault), on a ferry boat in the Mississippi, and was tried in the district court in the state of Iowa, in Muscatine county, and convicted. Held no ^'Guedel v. P., 43 111. 226; Rex v. 30 Pac. 814; Timon v. S., 34 Tex. Martin, 5 C. & P. 128; Rex v. Cr. 363, 30 S. W. 808; Gerard v. P., Hughes, 5 C. & P. 126; 1 MeClain 3 Scam. (111.) 363; Tufts v. S., 41 Cr. L., § 377. ■ Fla. 663, 27 So. 218. =» Reynolds v. P., 83 111. 481, citing ="S. v. Jenklhs, 20 S. C. 351; Com. 1 Hale P. C. 626. v. Parrell, 105 Mass. 189; S. v. Tay- " U. S. V. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 16 lor, 34 La. 978. See S. v. Reinhart, S. Ct. 1192. See Harp v. S., 59 Ark. 26 Or. 466, 38 Pac. 822; Dilger V. 113, 26 S. W. 714. Contra, Conley Com., 88 Ky. 550, 11 Ky. L. 67, 11 S. V. S., 85 Ga. 348, 11 S. E. 659; Mc- W. 651. Neill V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 977. '^ Phillips v. P., 55 111. 433. Compare P. v. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 260, §'2658 JEOPARDY. ,' 675 tar to a prosecution for the same ~ttansaGtioii alleged to have been committed in the state of lUinois.^^ § 2608. Acquittal in wrong county.^An acquittal in one county- is not a bar to another indictment for the same offense in the proper county.'' Article XVII. Conviction-, When JSTo Bak. § 2609. Conviction, when no bar, though same transaction.— The fact, that the accused had been tried and convicted (but not sentenced) on another indictment for the murder of a different person than the deceased named in the second indictment, is not a bar to the second, though growing out of the same transaction.'* An indictment for stealing the property of C. charges a different offense than that of the larceny of the property of B. and W., though growing out of the same transaction; and the one is not a bar to the other.'*^ Article XVIII. Different Offenses. § 2610. "Keeping gaming house," distinct from "gaming." — Th6 offense of keeping a gaming house is a distinct offense from gaming^ and a conviction or acquittal on one will not be a bar to the other.'^ § 2611. Riot and assault. — A conviction for assault and battery is no bar to an indictment for riot arising out of the same transac- tion.'" § 2612. Single offense — Splitting offenses. — Upon general princi- ples a single offense can not be split into separate parts and the ac- cused be prosecuted for each of such separate parts, although each part may of itself constitute a separate offense. If the offender be prosecuted for one part that ends the prosecution for that offense, provided such part of itself constitutes an offense for which a convic- tion can be had.'^ "^ Phillips V. P., 55 111. 433. See ^aRiife v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1331, Underbill Cr. Ev., § 196, citing Mc- 56 S. W. 265; S. v. Couacil, 58 S. C. Neil V. S., 29 Tex. App. 48, 14 S. W. 368, 36 S. B. 663. 393; S. V. Phillips, 104 N. C. 786, 10 =»Tuberson v. S., 26 Fla. 472, 7 S. B. 463; S. v. Sommers, 60 Minn. So. 858; P. v. Dewy, 58 Hun 602, 11 90, 61 N. W. 907; Brown v. S., 105 N. Y. Supp. 602; S. v. Mosby, 53 Mo. Ala. 117, 16 So. 929; P. v. Connor, App. 571. 142 N. Y. 130, 36 N. E. 807; Dulin v. »Freeland v. P., 16 111. 383. See Lillard, 91 Va. 718, 20 S. B. 821; Powell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. .Blyew V. Com., 91 Ky. 200, 12 Ky. 94; Ford v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. L. 742, 15 S. W. 356. 918; Taylor v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. == Campbell v. P., 109 111. 571, 573. W. 753. "Peri V. P., 65 111. 22. " S. v. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 3 676 hughes' criminal law. § 2613 § 2613. Arson and murder at one act. — The prisoner had been in- dieted, tried and convicted for arson. While still in custody under this proceeding he was arraigned on an indictment for the murder of two persons, who were in the house when it was burned. The con- viction for arson was held a bar to the indictment for murder.^' Article XIX. Jury Unlattfullt Discharged. § 2614. When jury can not agree — Dismissal. — The discharge of a jury because of a failure to agree, after all efforts to agree had been exhausted, is no bar to another trial.'* § 2615. Discharging jury after jeopardy. — When jeopardy has be- gun, and the jury are unnecessarily and without the consent of the prisoner discharged, such discharge of the jury is equivalent to an acquittal, and the prisoner thereby becomes entitled to exemption from further prosecution for the same offense.*" After the jury were sworn, but before any statement of the case had been made to them, one of the jurors (who had not been specially interrogated as to his qualifications as a juror, but others called with him were so interrogated in his presence and hearing) informed the court that he had, by inadvertence, incorrectly answered the court's inquiry as to some of his qualifications .as a juror; that he was in fact neither a freeholder nor a householder. The defendant, by his counsel, in answer to the court, said : "We decline to change the jury ; we object to a discharge of the jury." The court, over objection and exception, discharged the jury and proceeded to impanel another jury. Held that the defendant, having been in jeopardy, the discharge of the jury was equivalent to an acquittal.*^ Pac. 346, 5 Am. C. R. 74. See also S. v. Hager, 61 Kan. 504, 59 Pac. U. S. V. Miner, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 1080, 41 L. R. A. 254. 511, 2 Green C. R. 246; Powell v. *° Adams v. S., 99 Ind. 244, 4 Am. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 94; Clem v. C. R. 311; Cook v. S., 60 Ala. 39, S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. R. 369, 2 3 Am. C. R. 306; P. v. Arnett, 129 Green C. R. 691; S. v. Chinault, 55 Cal. 306, 61 Pac. 930; P. v. Hunck- Kan. 326, 40 Pac. 662. eler, 48 Cal. 331, 1 Am. C. R. 507; ■« S. V. Cooper, 1 Green (N. J.) Jones v. S., 55 Ga. 625, 1 Am. C. R. 361; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. 510; O'Brian v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) S.) 163, 2 Green C. R. 109. 333, 1 Am. C. R. 520, 523; Bell v. S., =»Dreyer v. P., 188 111. 46, 58 N. 48 Ala. 684, 2 Green C. R. 628; S. v. E. 620; S. V. WMtson, 111 N. C. 695, Spayde, 110 Iowa 726, 80 N. W. 16 S. E. 332; Com. v. Cody, 165 Mass. 1058. 133, 42 N. B. 575; P. v. Harding, "Adams v. S., 99 Ind. 244, 4 Am. 53 Mich. 481, 19 N. W. 155; In re C. R. 310, 311. See Helm v. S., 66 Allison, 13 Colo. 525,. 22 Pac. 820; Miss. 537, 6 So. 322; S. v. Robinson, Adams v. S., 34 Fla. 185, 15 So. 905; 46 La. 769, 15 So. 146. §2616 JEOPARDY. • 677 I §2616. Jury unlawfully discharged. — The withdrawal or dis- charge of a competent juror after the jury had been sworn to try; the case terminated the legal existence of the jury. That a juror who was discharged had been a member of the grand jury that returned the indictment into court did not disqualify him and was no legal grounds for so discharging him.*^ The jury in a case were dis- charged (after delivering their verdict of guilty in the absence of the prisoner) and dispersed among the audience in the court room and persons outside. It would be a dangerous precedent to hold that after this the persons who composed that jury could be reassembled as such to render a verdict in a case of which they had been thus dis- charged. The defendant must be released from further prosecution.*' The jury had been deliberating upon their verdict in a capital case five days, the fifth day 'being the last day of the term, and failing to agree upon a verdict, were discharged by the court, against the objec- tion of the defendants. The court caused the following order to be entered : "Now, to wit, 5th February, 1887, the jury in this case hav- ing come into court repeatedly and affirmed that they could not agree and that they had made every -possible eflEort to agree, and that they still can not agree, the term of the court now expiring, the court being satisfied that it is useless to detain the jury longer, the jury are dis- charged from further consideration of the case, to which order and discharge the defendants excepted. Held a bar to a second trial, the record failing to show a lawful cause for discharging the jury.** In a homicide ease, after the jury had been out deliberating thirty-two hours, they were discharged by the court in the absence of the de- fendant because of their inability to agree: Held a bar to a second trial, even though the discharge of the jury would have been proper had the defendant been present in eourt.*^ § 2617. Void verdict;— Jury discharged. — The reception of a ver- dict which proves to be a nullity, and the discharge of the jury, are equivalent to an acquittal, and the defendant can not again be put on "O'Brian v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 109, 15 Atl. 466, 7 Am. C. R. 199. 333, 1 Am. C. R. 520-523; Dobbins v. See Hilands v. Com., Ill Pa. St. 1, S., 14 Ohio St. 493; Jones v. S., 97 2 Atl. 70, 6 Am. C. R. 342. See Ala. 77, 12 So. 274, 38 Am. R. 150. "Verdict" Contra, Roberts v. S., 72 Miss. 728, *' S. v. Wilson, 50 Ind. 487, 19 Am. 18 So. 481. R. 719, 1 Am. C. R. 529; S. v. Som- " Cook V. S., 60 Ala. 39, 3 Am. C. mers, 60 Minn. 90, 61 N. W. 907. R. 306. See S. v. Hays, 2 Lea Contra, S. v. White, 19 Kan. 445, 27 (Tenn.) 156, 2 Am. C. R. 630. Am. R. 137. "Com. V. Fitzpatrick. 121 Pa. St. 678 ■ hughes' criminal law." §261^ trial for the same offense; for it would be putting him twice in Jeopardy.*" , Article XX. Dismissing Cause. ' § 2618. Court dismissing after trial commenced. — If a defendant is put on his trial, on what is called an included offense, and before verdict the court dismisses the case for the purpose of holding him to answer a charge of a greater offense in the same transaction, he can not be again tried for the same or greater offense, having been once in jeopardy.*^ §2619. Dismissing after plea of guilty. — ^A defendant, having pleaded guilty to an indictment in a court of competent jurisdiction, and nothing remaining to be done except to sentence him and render judgment, he is in jeopardy; and the prosecution will not be per- mitted to then dismiss the case and procure another indictment for the same offense.*' Article XXI. Verdict, Unlawful. § 2620. Verdict unlawfully returned. — The jury, in the absence of the defendant and his counsel, returned a verdict convicting the de- fendant, and were discharged. Neither the defendant nor his counsel tad given consent to this action of the court in receiving a verdict while he was absent in jail. The verdict, on motion of the defendant, was afterwards set aside. Held to be a bar to any further prosecu- tion for the same offense.*' § 2621. Indictment, invalid, no bar. — The defendant was put upon trial on an indictment returned by the grand Jury, which had been found by that body upon the minutes of the evidence as returned by the committing magistrate, that none of the state's witnesses had been examined before the grand Jury. On discovery of that fact the Court, on motion^ discharged the Jury which had' been selected and " Hayes v. S., 107 Ala. 1, 18 So. « Boswell v. S., Ill Ind. 47, 11 N. 172; Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 76, 15 E. 788; P. v. Goldstein, 32 Cal. 432. So. 351. Contra, Gibson v. Com., 2 See Ledgerwood v. S., 134 Ind. 81, 3S Va. Gas. 111. ' N". E. 631. ' "? P. V. Ny Sam Chuhg, 94 Cal. 304, "Nolan v. S., 55 Ga. 521-, 1 Am. 29 Pac. 642; P. v. Hunckfeler, 48 Cal. C. R. 532; Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 331. 76, 15 So. 351. See "Verdict." §2622 JEOPARDY. 67& sworn ito try the cause. Held to te a mistrial and no bar to a second trial.=° iiii i, Article XXII. Nolle Pegs, of Indictment. . J 2622. Nolle pros.^Of good indictment, — A case having gone to the Jury on a good indictment, it could not be withdrawn without the consent of the defendant, by the state's attorney entering a nolle pros. Such withdrawal, is eauivalent to an acquittal.^^ Aeticle XXIII. Pkeliminart Examination. 2623. Examination and discharge, no bar. — The examination and discharge of a person by one magistrate is no bar to an examina- tion for the same offense before some other magistrate in case the proper complaint is made. Such examination is in no sense a trial.^* Article XXlyi Sickness Stopping T'eial. §2624. Sickness of juror or other of&cer. — In the event the jury or court or prisoner, in the progress of the trial, becomes unable to proceed with the trial, by reason of sickness, his jeopardy, which Wd commenced, at once ceases.^^ .q . Aeticle XXV. Illegal VEEDiCTi, ' § 2625. Illegal verdict, eflfeet. — An informal, and with greater j'eason.an illegal verdict, inay be rejected by the court, and willnot operate as an acquittal unless- plainly intended.'* "S. V. Parker, 66 Iowa 586, 24 N. Cal. 183, 19 Pac. 267; Jambor v. S., W. 225, 5 Am. C. R. 340. 75 Wis. 664, 44 N. W. 963. « Jones V. S., 55 Ga. 625, 1 Am. C. =" S. v. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 7 Atl. R. 510; Cooley Const. Lim. (2d ed.), 129, 7 Am. C. R. 205; S. v. Hazle- 327; P. V. Hunckeler, 48 Cal. 331, 1 dahl, 2 N. D. 521, 52 N. W. 315; S. v. Am. C. R. 507; Grogan v. S., 44 Ala. Tatman, 59 Iowa 471, 13 N. W. 632; 9; S. V. Champeau, 52 Vt. 313, 36 P. v. Ross, 85 Cal. 383, 24 Pac. 789; Am. R. 754; S. v. Patterson, 116 Mo. Ex parte Ulrlch, 42 Fed. 587; Hllbert 505, 22 S. W. 696; Franklin v. S., 85 v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 537, 51 S. W. 817; Ga. 570, 11 S. E. 876. See generally Woodward v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. S.v. Child, 44 Kan. 420, 24 Pac. 952; W. 135. See Yarbrough v. S., 105 Com. V. Galligan, 156 Mass. 270, 30 Ala. 43, 10 Am. C. R. 62, 16 So. N. B. 1142; P. V. Kuhn, 67 Mich. 758. 463, 35 N. W. 88. "Robinson v. S., 23 Tex. App. 315, "Ex parte Garst, 10 Neb. 78, 2 4 S. W. 904, 7 Am. C. R. 209; Allen Am. C. R. 618; Bulson v. P., 31 111. v. S., 26 Ark. 333; Murphy v. S., 7 415; In re Mclntyre, 5 Gilm. (111.) Colo. 516; Townley v. Cady, 10 Neb. 422; S. V. Vaughan, 121 Ala. 41, 25 388, 6 N. W. 464; Fitts v. S., 102 So. 727; Ex parte Robinson, 108 Ala. Tenn. 141, 50 S. W. 756. 161, 18 So. 729; Ex parte Fenton. 77 680 hughes' criminal law. § 2626 Article XXVI. Conviction by Defendant's Fraud. § 2626. Conviction procured by fraud of defendant. — ^A conviction procured by the defendant by fraud or by collusion with the prose- cuting witness is not a bar to another prosecution for the same of- fense.^^ § 2627. Conviction before justice of peace on complaint of defend- ant. — ^A former conviction before a justice of the peace on the com- plaint of the defendant himself is no bar to a prosecution for the same offense, commenced in another court of competent jurisdiction." Article XXVII. Increasing Penalty. § 2628. Increasing penalty for second offense. — A statute which provides for a longer term of imprisonment or increase of penalty for a second or subsequent offense does not put the accused twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Such statute is valid.^^ "McFarland v. S., 68 Wis. 400, 32 Tex. App. 104, 30 Am. R. 124; De N. W. 226, 60 Am. R. 867; Watkins Bord v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 599. v. S., 68 Ind. 427, 34 Am. R. 273; S. "Kelly v. P., 115 111. 583, 4 N. B. V. Swepson, 79 N. C. 632; Com. v. 644; Chenowith v. Com., 11 Ky. L. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 501. 561, 12 S. W. 585; P. v. Bosworth, »S. V. Wakefield, 60 Vt. 618, 15 64 Hun (N. Y.) 72, 19 N. Y. Supp. Atl. 181; S. V. Simpson, 28 Minn. 114; S. v. Moore, 121 Mo. 514, 26 €6, 9 N. W. 78, 41 Am. R. 269; Hal- S. W. 345, 42 Am. R. 542; S. v. loran v. S., 80 Ind. 586; Bradley v. Stevens, 103 Ind. 55, 2 N. B. 214, 53 S., 32 Ark. 722; Warriner v. S.. 3 Am. R. 482; Moore v. Missouri, 159 V. S. 673. 16 S. Ct. 179. DIVISION TWO PART NINE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE CHAPTEK LXXIII. ARRESTS. Ari. I. Arrest Unwarranted, . . II. Warrant Void; Escape, III. Warrant Protects Officer, . IV. Search Warrant; Seizing, V. Arrests Without Warrant, VI. Sheriff's Posse Assisting, . VII. Private Persons Arresting, VIII. Arrest by "Hue and Cry," IX. Breaking Doors ; Killing, . X. Officer Showing Warrant, XI. Unlawful Arrest, No Defense, XII, Arrest, Where Made, . . . §§ 2629-3630 §§ 3631-2633 § 3364 §§ 3635-3638 §§ 2639-2649 § 3650 § 3651 § 3653 §§ 3653-3655 § 2656 § 3657 § 3658 Article I. Arrest Unwaeraitted. § 2629. Arrest imwarranted. — An arrest without a warrant, where one is required, is not due process of law; and arbitrary or despotic power no man possesses under our system of government.^ ' Muscoe V. Com., 86 Va. 443, 8 Am. C. R. 607, 10 S. B. 534; Board of (681) 682 hughes' criminal law, § 2630 § 2630. Warrant based on affidavit. — "No warrant shall issue with- out probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."^ Aeticle II. Warrant Void; Escape. § 2631. Void warrant may be resisted.— An insufficient affidavit — that is, an affidavit which fails to allege that the prisoner commit- ted the offense, or that there is probable cause to suspect that he com- mitted the same — will not confer jurisdiction On the justice who is- sued it, and a prisoner arrested on a warrant so issued is justified in asserting his right to freedom ; and in breaking away from the officer's custody he commits no offense.^ An officer is liable for false impris- onment by making an arrest on a void warrant, no matter what his motives were.* § 2632. Warrant signed in blank is void. — ^A warrant signed in blank, the name of the person to be arrested being inserted without authority, is a nullity.' § 2633. Officer permitting escape. — It is no offense in an officer to suffer a prisoner to escape where the prisoner has the right to resist an unlawful imprisonment or arrest, and the officer may > refuse to eerve a warrant unlawfully issued.® Article III. Warrant Protects Ofeicee. § 2634. Warrant protects officer. — A warrant regular on its face will protect the officer who makes' the arrest from an action for as- sault and false imprisonment, though issued by a court on a void com- plaint conferring no jurisdiction.'' Trustees v. Schroeder, 58 111. 353; ' Shanley v. Wells, 71 111. 78; Ryan S. v. James, 78 N. C. 455; 4 Bl. Com. v. Donnelly, 71 111. 100. 292. » Rafferty v. P., 69 111. 116. Mil. Const. 1870, Art. II, § 6; ' Housh v. P., 75 111. 491. Myersv. P., 67 111. 510; Carrow v. P., 'Housh V. P., 75 111. 491; Tuttle 113 111. 558; Housh v. P., 75 111. v. Wilson, 24 111. 561; S.v. James, 490. 80 N. C. 370; Slomer v. P., 25 111. ^ Housh V. P., 75 111. 491; iS. v. 59; Mangold v. Thorpe, 33 N. J. L. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; S. v. Gleason, 32 134; Clarke v. May, 2 Gray (Mass.) Kan. 245, 4 Pac. 363, 5 Am. C. R. 410. 76. ' • ,.,.,:- = § 2635 AEEESTS. 683 , i! Article IV. Search Warrant; Seizing. t §2635. Basis for search warrant. — A search warrant can only be grapte(}|ft:^teir, a showing made bef pre, a inagistrate,, under oath, that a crime has been committed; and the law in requiring a showing of probable cause, supported hy affidavit, intends that the facts shall be stated which shall justify the magistrate th^t suspicion is well found- ed. The mere expression of opinion under oath is no ground for the warrant except as the facts justify it^* :toi§ 2636. Warrant to search and seize.— rLaws which provide for the search and seizure pf articles and things which it is unlawful for a person to have in his possession, for the purpose of issue or disposi- tion, such as "counterfeit coin, lottery tickets, implements of gaming, etc., are hot within the category of unreasonable search and seizure."* ji § 2637. Search warrant — Describing premises.^ — ^A search warrant which described the premises to be searched, as a certain building, the cellar under the same, and the out buildings within the^ curtilage thereof situate, does not authorize the search of another building situated on an adjoining lot, but' connected by a covered passage- way.^" § 2638. rnreasonable search. — The law providing against unrea- sonable search and seizure of articles does not include counterfeit coin, lottery tickets, implements of gambling and other things which it is unlawful for a person to have in his possession.^ ^ Article V. ASrests Without Warrant. f: §'2639. Arrest without warrant— Arrests made for misdemeanors 'committed in the presence of the officer making the arrest are war- ranted by the common law, where there is danger of escape, or where the wrongful act. can not be stopped or redressed except by immediate 'Lippman v. P. 175 111. 113, 51 N. E. 874; Cooley Const. Lim. (5tli ed.), E. 872; Cooley Const. Liin. (4tli ed.) 306. 372. ' "Com. V. Intox. Liquors, 140 ' " Boyd V. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 S. Mass. 287, 5 Am. C. R. 627, 3 N. Ct. 524; Com. v. Dana, 2 Mete. E. 4. (Mass.) 329; Glennon v. Britton, 155 "Langdon v. P., 133 lU. 397, 24 111. 246, 40 N. E. 594. See Lippman N. E. 874; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. ■V. P., 175 111. 101, 51 N. E. 872; 616, 6 S. Ct. 524. Langdon v. P., 133 111. 398, 24 N. 684 hughes' criminal law. § 2640 arrest.^^ In some of the states arrests can not be made without a warrant, except in felony cases, even though committed in the pres- ence of the officer making the arrest,^^ while in other states arrests may be made without a warrant for misdemeanors, if committed in the presence of the officer making the arrest, though the constitu- tional restrictions in the latter are the same as in the states where such arrests are forbidden.^* § 2640. Arrest without warrant — Officer assaulted. — If an as- sault be made on an officer while making a lawful arrest without a warrant, it is no defense that the latter, neglecting his duty, did not afterwards make complaint against the defendant for the offense for which he was arrested. ^° § 2641. Arresting for misdemeanor. — In all cases of misdemeanors not committed in the presence of the officer he has no authority to make arrest without a warrant, and he can not make an arrest upon mere information of others in such eases.^° In cases of misdemeanors committed in the presence of the officer making the arrest, which can not be stopped or redressed, unless the offender is immediately arrest- ed without a warrant, such arrest may be made by the sheriff, eon- stable, or other like officer, and a law authorizing such arrests is not in conflict with the provision of the constitution that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."^' § 2642. Arresting without warrant. — An officer having reasonable grounds for believing a person has committed a crime may arrest with- out a warrant, and if the offense be committed in the presence of the officer it is his duty to make the arrest.^' A town marshal or police "North V. P., 139 111. 106, 28 N. J. L. 189, 17 Atl. 113, 8 Am. C. R. E. 966; 4 Bl. Com. 292. 41; Muscoe v. Com., 86 Va. 443, 10 "North V. P., 139 111. 105, 28 N. S. B. 534, 8 Am. C. R. 605; 1 Blsh. E. 966; S. v. Hunter, 106 N. C. 796, Cr. Proc, 183, 184; 2 Hawk. P. C. 11 S. E. 366; Pinkerton v. Verberg, 81. 78 Mich. 573, 44 N. W. 579. "North v. P., 139 111. 105, 28 N. "North V. P., 139 111. 105, 28 N. E. 966. E. 966; White v. Kent, 11 Ohio St. "Cahill v. P., 106 111. 621; Shanley 550. V. Wells, 71 111. 82; Ryan v. Don- ^2 Bish. Cr. L., § 1011, citing Com. nelly, 71 111. 100; Simmerman v. S., V. Tobin, 108 Mass. 426; Com. v. 16 Neb. 615, 4 Am. C. R. 98, 21 N. McGahey, 11 Gray (Mass.) 194. W. 387. See P. v. Burt, 51 Mich. '"Main v. McCarty, 15 111. 441; 199, 16 N. W. 378; Carr v. S., 43 Ark. Shanley v. Wells, 71 111. 82; S. v. 99. See Morris v. Kasling, 79 Tex. Lewis, 50 Ohio St. 179, 9 Am. C. R. 141, 15 S. W. 226; Wright v. Com., 50, 33 N. B. 405; Webb v. S., 51 N. 85 Ky. 123, 8 Ky. L. 718, 2 S. W. 904; § 2643 ARRESTS, 685 officer may lawfully make an arrest without a warrant for violations of city or village ordinances, committed in the presence of such offi- §2643. In presence of officer defined. — ^An officer is justified in making an arrest for an offense as having been committed in his pres- ence, if committed in his sight, though some distance from him, or if he can hear what is said, though too dark to see.''" § 2644. Breaches of peace in presence. — ^A peace officer has the fight to make an arrest without a warrant for breach of the peace committed in his presence. ^^ § 2645. Prisoner taken before magistrate. — A person, on being ar- rested for a breach of the peace or criminal offense, should be taken before a magistrate by the officer or person making the arrest, without unnecessary delay.^^ § 2646. Arrest for carrying weapons. — An officer acting in good faith may lawfully arrest a person without a warrant for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons in the public streets, where he has reason- able information of such violation, although he may have had no pre- vious knowledge of the fact.^^ Johnson v. S., 30 Ga. 426; Doering =' Com. v. Tobin, 108 Mass. 426, 11 V. S., 49 Ind. 56, 19 Am. R. 669; Am. R. 375; In re Powers, 25 Vt. Warner v. Grace, 14 Minn. 487; S. 261; Boutte v. Emmer, 43 La. 980, V. Grant, 79 Mo. 113, 49 Am. R. 218. 9 So. 921; S. v. Guy, 46 La. 1441, 16 '•Village of Oran v. Bles, 52 Mo. So. 404; Veneman v. Jones, 118 Ind. App. 509; Hayes v. Mitchell, 69 Ala. 41, 20 N. E. 644, 10 Am. St. 100; 452; Roderick v. Whltson, 51 Hun Fleetwood v. Com., 80 Ky. 2; Be- 620, 4 N. Y. Supp. 112; Riggs v. ville v. S., 16 Tex. App. 70; Hayes Com., 17 Ky. L. 1015, 33 S. W. 413; v. Mitchell, 80 Ala. 183; Douglas v. P. V. Van Houten, 35 N. Y. Supp. Barber, 18 R. I. 459, 28 Atl. 805; S. 186, 69 N. Y. St. 265; S. v. Freeman, v. Russell, 1 Houst. Cr. (Del.) 122; 86 N. C. 683. See S. v. Gantieny, 34 Tracy v. Williams, 4 Conn. 107, 10 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. 458. Contra, City Am. Dec. 102. of Philadelphia v. Campbell, 11 =^ Simmons v. Vandyke, 138 Ind. Phila. (Pa.) 163. See S. v. Belk, 76 380, 37 N. E. 973, 46 Am. R. 411; N. C. 10. Judson v. Reardon, 16 Minn. 431; '°P. v. Bartz, 53 Mich. 493, 19 N. Gary v. S., 76 Ala. 78; S. v. Freeman, W. 161. See also Dllger v. Com., 86 N. C. 683. 88 Ky. 550, 11 Ky. L. 67, 11 S. W. ^^ Ballard v. S., 43 Ohio St. 340, «51; S. V. McAfee, 107 N. C. 812, 12 1 N. E. 76, 5 Am. C. R. 40; Ex parte S. E. 435; P. v. Johnson, 86 Mich. Sherwood, 29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S. 175, 48 N. W. 870, 24 Am. R. 116; W. 812. See S. v. Holcomb, 86 Mo. Fry V. Kaessner; 48 Neb. 133, 66 371. N. W. 1126. 686 hughes' ckiminal law." § 2647:' § 2647. Arrest without warrant, for vagrancy. — An officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for vagrancy, when committed in. the presence of the officer.^* § 2648. Arresting street walkers. — An officer can not, without a warrant, arrest a woman having the reputation of being a street walker while walking along the street doing nothing to indicate^ that she is plying her voeaition.^' But a prostitute may be arrested without a warrant when found soliciting men for immoral purposes "* § 2649. Arresting on telegram^ — ^For extradition. — An officer of one state has no right to arrest a person charged with a crime on a mere- telegram from an officer of another state without a warrant.^'' An officer can not lawfully arrest a person and hold him for the purpose of extradition.^* Article VI. Sheriff's Posse Assisting. § 2650. Sheriff's posse arresting — Person assisting. — A member of the sheriff's posse, acting under the orders of the sheriff, may make an arrest, even though the sheriff may not be actually present with the warrant for the arrest of the person charged; if the sheriff is within the county, and is bona fide and strictly engaged in the business of the arrest, it is sufficient: the sheriff is constructively present.''* A private person assisting an officer at the request of the latter may lawfully make an arrest, though the warrant is not actually in his possession at the time, but in possession of the officer.^* Article VII. Private Persons Arresting. § 2651. Arrest by private person. — A felony having in fact been committed, a private person may, without a warrant, arrest one who "Shanley v. Wells, 71 111. 78; =« Malcolmson v. Scott, 56 Mich. Jones V. S., 14 Mo. 409; Roberts v. 459, 23 N. W. 166. S., 14 Mo. 138, 55 Am. D. 97. =» Robinson v. S., 93 Ga. 77, 9 Am. ==Pinkerton v. Verberg, 78 Mich. C. R. 572, 18 S. E. 1018. See P. v. 573, 44 N. W. 579. McLean, 68 Mich. 480, 36 N. W. 231; ^"Harft V. McDonald, 1 City Ct. Drennan v. P., 10 Mich. 169; Com. (N. Y.) 181; P. V. Pratt, 22 Hun (N. v. Field, 13 Mass. 321; Webb v. Y.) 300. S., 51 N. J. L. 189, 8 Am. C. R. 42, =' Simmons v. Vandyke, 138 Ind. 17 Atl. 113. 380, 37 N. B. 973, 46 Am. R. 411; "Com. v. Black, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 31; Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, Kirble v. S., 5 Tex. App. 60. 16 So. 68. § 2652 ARRESTS. 687 he has reasonable grounds to suspect committed such felony.''^ But before a private person is warranted in making an arrest without a warrant it mtist' appear that a felony was in' fact committed.'^ Any private person (and a fortiori^ a peace officer) that is present when a felony is committed is bound by the law to arrest the felon on pain' of fine and imprisonment, if he escapes through the negligence of by- standers.^' ' ' ..-.;/ I ' Aexicle VIII. Aeeest by "Hue and Get." §2652. Arrest by "hue and cry." — There is another species of arrest wherein both officer and private men are concerned, and that is upon a "hue and cry" raised upon a felony committed. This is the old common law process of pursuing with horn and with voice all felons and such as have dangerously wounded another.'* Article IX. Breaking Doges ; Killing. § 2653. Breaking doors to arrest. — An officer may break open doors for the purpose of , making an arrest, if necessary, on a criminal charge.'^ § 2654. Killing to prevent escape. — An officer or private person, if resisted by a person charged with felony, may kill to prevent the escape of the person so charged if all reasonable efforts shall have first been used without success to prevent escape.'" An officer has no, right to shoot and kill a person whom he seeks to arrest charged with a misdemeanor, even if the person can not otherwise be taken." Killing under such circumstances by an officer is murder." "Wright V. Com., 85 Ky. 123, 8 Oliver, 2 Houst. (Del.) 585; Com. v. Ky. L. 718, 2 S. W. 904; U. S. v. Reynolds, 120 Mass. 190, 21 Am. R. Boyd, 45 Fed. 851; Long v. S., 12 510; Cahill v. P., 106 111. 621; 4 Bl. Ga. 293; Brooks v. Com., 61 Pa. St. Com. 293. 352, 100 Am. D. 645; Neal v. Joyner, "4 Bl. Com. 293; Renau v. S., 2 89 N. C. 287; Kennedy v. S., 107 Lea (Tenn.) 720, 2 Am. C. R. 624; Ind. 144, 6 N. E. 305, 57 Am. R. 99; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 298; 1 Hale P. Reuck V. McGregor, 32 N. J. L. 70; C. 481; 1 Bast P. C. 298; Jackson S. V. Mowry, 37 Kan. 369, 15 Pac. v. S., 66 Miss. 89, 5 So. 690. 282; Simmerman v. S., 16 Neb. 615, "Tiner v. S., 44 Tex. 128; Wright 21 N. W. 387. V. S., 44 Tex. 645; Handley v. S., ""Holley v. Mix, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 96 Ala. 48, 11 So. 322; 2 Hale P. C. 350, 20 Am. D. 703; Bodds v. Board, 117; Dilger v. Com., 88 Ky. 550, 11 43 111. 95. Ky. L. 67, 11 S. W. 651; Com. v. ='4 Bl. Com. 293; Long v. S., 12 Greer, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 535. Ga. 293. '^Reneau v. S., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 720, "4 Bl. Com. 293. 2 Am. C. R. 624; S. v. Dietz, 59 Kan. =«Shanley v. Wells, 71 III. 78; S. 576, 53 Pac. 870; 2 Bish. Cr. L.. V. Smith, 1 N. H. 346; S. v. Mooring, § 648. See § 35> 115 N. C. 709, 20 S. B. 182; S. v. 688 hughes' ceiminal law. § 2655 § 2655. Killing officer in unlawful arrest. — It is well established' that if a public officer be resisted and killed by a person whom he is attempting to arrest illegally and without color of authority, the- killing will be manslaughter, unless the evidence show previous or express malice.^" Article X. Officek Showing Wareant. § 2656. Officer showing warrant. — An officer in making an arrest is not required to show his warrant, provided he states its substance to the party whom he seeks to arrest.*" Article XI. Unlawful Arrest, No Defense. § 2657. Tnlawful arrest is no defense. — An illegal arrest is no de- fense to an indictment. No matter how the prisoner was brought before the court, it has jurisdiction to try him on the indictment.*^ Article XII. Arrest, Where Made. § 2658. Arrest in any county. — An officer may pursue and appre- hend a person charged with an offense in any county in the state and execute the warrant where authorized by statute.*^ But an officer can not lawfully make an arrest outside the limits of his own county vinless authorized by statute.*' ^Rafferty v. P., 72 111. 40; Ballard "Whar.' Cr. PI. & Pr. (8tli ed.), V. S., 43 Ohio St. 340, 1 N. B. 76; § 27; Mix v. P., 26 111. 34; P. v. Roberts v. S., 14 Mo. 138; S. v. Copely, 4 Cr. L. Mag. 192; P. v. Symes, 20 Wash. 484, 55 Pac. 626; Rowe, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 253; Ker Briggs V. Com., 82 Va. 554; Muscoe v. P., 110 111. 638; Ex parte Barker. V. Com., 86 Va. 443, 10 S. E. 534, 8 87 Ala. 4, 6 So. 7, 8 Am. C. R. 237; Am. C. R. 606; S. v. Davis, 53 S. C. S. v. Day, 58 Iowa 678, 12 N. W. 150, 31 S. E. 62; Ross v. S., 10 Tex. 733; In re Durant, 60 Vt. 176, 12 App. 455; Harrison v. S., 24 Ala. 67; Atl. 650. Contra, In re Robinson, 29 Croom V. S., 85 Ga. 718, 11 S. B. Neb. 135, 45 N. W. 267; S. v. Sim- 1035; Fleetwood v.' Com., 80 Ky. 1; mons, 39 Kan. 262, 18 Pac. 177. See Hughes V. Com., 19 Ky. L. 497, 41 § 2574. S. W. 294; 2 Roscoe Cr. Ev., § 791; "Ressler v. Peats, 86 111. 275. 1 Hale P. C. 465; 1 East P. C. 110. "Jones v. S., 26 Tex. App. 1, 9 S. "Robinson v. S., 93 Ga. 77, 18 S. W. 53; Ledbetter v. S., 23 Tex. App. E. 1018, 9 Am. C. R. 575; Shovlin 247, 5 S. W. 226; Copeland v. Islay, v. Com., 106 Pa. St. 369, 5 Am. C. 2 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.) 505. See Ress- R. 42. ler v. Peats, 86 III. 275. CHAPTBE LXXIV. BAIL. Aet. I. Eefusing Bail, § 3659 II. Bail Bond, Void, § 2660 III. Bail Pending Writ of Error, ....§§ 2661-3662 IV. Surety, When Liable, § 2663 V. Bail in Capital Cases, §§ 2664-3665 VI. Application for Bail, § 2666 Akticle I. Eefusing Bail. §2659. Refusal to approve bail. — Valuable property to a very large amount was conveyed to each of the bail by friends of the defendant to enable the bail to become qualified in the requisite sum. The conveyance was absolute and without any qualification. Held that the bail must be approved.^ Article II. Bail Bond, Void. § 2660. Bail bond, when void. — If the sheriff require the accused to give bond in a larger amount than the sum fixed by the court it is void.2 Article III. Bail Pending Writ op Error. § 2661. Bail, pending writ of error. — It is the settled law of Cali- fornia that the supreme court will not admit to bail after a ver- dict of guilty, unless when circumstances of extraordinary character have intervened since the conviction.' 'P. V. Ingersoll, 14 Abbott Pr. ' Ex parte Brown, 68 Cal. 176, 8 ' (N. S.) (N. Y.) 23, 1 Green C. R. Pac. 829, 6 Am. C. B. 60; P. v. Mar- 635. shall, 59 Cal. 386. ^Roberts v. S., 34 Kan. 151, 6 Am. C. R. 62, 8 Pac. 246. hughes' c. l.— 44 ( 689) 690 hughes' criminal law. § 2662 § 2662. Fending writ of error — ^In federal court. — Any justice of the United States Supreme Court, in allowing a writ of error and granting a supersedeas, has authority to admit to bail any prisoner, pending the writ of error.* Aeticle IV. Surety^ When Liable. § 2663. When sureties liable. — If, after bail is given, the principal is imprisoned in another state for the violation of a criminal law of that state, it will not avail to protect him or his sureties. Such is now the settled rule.° Article V. Bail in Capital Cases. ^'§ 2664. Bail in murder eases. — ^Bail should be allowed in all cases 'of murder except where the proof is evident or the presumption great." If the evidence introduced on application for bail would sustain a verdict of conviction, bail should be denied.'' § 2665. Bail in capital case, when jury disagree. — A disagree- ment of the Jury in a capital case will not entitle the defendant as a matter of right to be released on bail.^ But if two successive juries have failed to agree on a verdict on an indictment for murder, this is a strong circumstance tending to show that the proof of guilt is not "evident nor the presumption great.'" Article VI. Application for Bail. ^ 2666. Application for hail in murder case. — A person indicted for murder in the first degree is entitled as of right to a hearing on "Hudson v. Parker, 156 U. S. 277, don, 12 Tex. App. 145; In re Wilson 15 S. Ct. 450, 9 Am. C. R. 91. (Tex. App.), 13 S. W. 609; Ex parte 'Taylor v. Talntor, 16 Wall. (U. Thompson (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 912. S.) 366, 2 Green C. R. 146; Grant ' Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, T. Fagan, 4 East 190; U. S. v. .Van 11 So. 316; Ex parte Claunch, 71 Fossen, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 406; U. S. v. Mo. 233; Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, French, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 1; Devine 11 So. 14; In re Troia, 64 Cal. 152, T. S., 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 625; With- 28 Pac. 231; Ex parte Foster, 5 Tex. row V. Com., 1 Bush (Ky.) 17. App. 625, 32 Am. R. 577. "In re Losasso, 15 Colo. 163, 24 "Webb v. S., 4 Tex. App. 167; Ek Pac. 1080; Ex parte Richards, 102 parte State, 47 La. 662, 17 So. 296; Ind. 260, 1 N. E. 639 ; Ex parte King, S. v. Summons, 19 Ohio 139. 86 Ala. 620, 5 So. 863; Ex parte ° In re Alexander, 59 Mo. 598, 21 Banks, 28 Ala. 89; In re Malison, 36 Am. R. 393. Kan. 725, 14 Pac. 144; Hx parte Ran- § 2666 bail/ 691 an application to be admitted to bail.^° The defendant, on a charge of murder, may make his application for ,bail, either by motion in term time or by habeas corpvs in' term time or vacation.^^ »S. V. Crocker, 5 Wyo. 385, 40 15 Colo. 163, 24 Pac. 1080; Holley Pac. 681, 9 Am. C. R. 468, citing v. S., 15 Fla. 688, 2 Am. C. R. 250. Ex parte Banks, 28 Ala. 89; S. v. "Lyncli v. P., 38 111. 497. See Ex Summons, 19 Ohio 139; Ex parte parte England, 23 Tex. App. 90, 3 Wray, 30 Miss. 673; In re Lossaso, S. W. 714. CHAPTEE LXXV. GRAND JURY. Art. I. Drawing and Summoning, II. Impaneling and Organizing, . III. Qualifications of Grand Jurors, IV. Keturn of Indictments, . . V. Witnesses before Grand Jury, "VI. Others before Grand Jury, VII. Presenting Matters to Grand Jury, VIII. Federal Grand Jury, . . . . § 2667 §§ 2668-2680 §§ 2681-2683 §§ 2684-2687 §§ 2688-2691 §§ 2692-2695 § 2696 § 2697 Article I. Drawing and Summoning.' § 2667. What constitutes grand jury. — At common law a grand jury consists of not over twenty-three persons and not less than twelve, selected from the body of the county.^ After instructions by a charge from the presiding judge, and after the grand jury withdraw for the purpose of secretly receiving and considering indictments, they are to hear the evidence on behalf of the prosecution only, for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to he tried and determined.^ Changes have been made in some if not most of our states as to the number of persons constitut- ing the full panel — in some not to exceed sixteen, but nowhere under twelve. And it is the universal rule that twelve of the grand jurors must concur in order to return a valid indictment.^ Article II. Impaneling and Organizing. § 2668. Organizing witli less than twenty-three. — A full panel of a grand jury under the statute of Illinois consists of twenty-three per- M Bl. Com. 302; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, =1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 854; 4 BL § 854. Com. 305, 306. H Bl. Com. 302, 303. (692) § 2669 GRAND JURY. 693 sons, sixteen of whom shall constitute a grand jury. Where, on call- ing the roll of the twenty-three who were duly selected and sum-' moned, one failed to appear, the court properly organized the grand jury with the twenty-two.* §2669. Irregularity in summoning. — If more grand jurors be drawn than the number required by statute, this irregularity can not le urged as a reason to invalidate an indictment.' §2670. Unlawful grand jury. — If a greater or less number of jurors be organized to constitute a grand jury than the constitutional or statutory number, as, for instance, sixteen instead of twelve jurors, their proceedings will be void. And an indictment returned by a grand jury so constituted may be quashed." § 2671. Indictment by unlawful grand jury. — When a grand jury is not selected as required by law, or a selection is made of such persons as are not qualified to act as grand jurors, an indictment found by them is null and void and should be quashed, and the prisoner indicted de novo.'' An indictment returned by a grand jury from which men of the negro race had been excluded from acting as grand jurors should, on proper motion, be quashed, although there be no statute making such exclusion ground for quashing indictments.''* § 2672. Irregularities, when immaterial. — Mere irregularities in the summoning and impaneling of a grand jury, not injurious to the lights of a person indicted, can not be urged by the accused as grounds for quashing the indictment, as, if the jurors were summoned to appear as "trial jurors" instead of grand jurors.* 'Beasley v. P., 89 111. 575; Barron Reynolds, 35 Tex. Cr. 437, 34 S. W. V. P., 73 111. 256; Gillespie v. P., 120, 60 Am. R. 54; Doyle v. S., 17 176 111. 240, 52 N. B. 250; P. v. Ohio 222. Simmons, 119 Cal. 1, 50 Pac. 844; 'S. v. Lawrence, 12 Or. 297, 7 P. v. Thompson, 122 Mich. 411, 81 N. Pac. 116, 5 Am. G. R. 165; Couch "W. 344; English v. S., 31 Fla. 340, v. S., 63 Ala. 163; Fitzgerald v. S., 12 So. 689; S. v. Cooley, 72 Minn. 4 Wis. 412; Whitehead v. Com., 19 476, 75 N. W. 729. See S. v. Brain- Gratt. (Va.) 640; Doyle v. S., 17 . ard. 56 Vt. 532, 48 Am. R. 818; S. Ohio 222; Wilburn v. S., 21 Ark. V. Bowman, 73 Iowa 110, 34 N. W. 201; Clare v. S., 30 Md. 165. Contra, 767. P. V. Petrea, 92 N. Y. 135. "Turner v. S., 78 Ga. 174; S. v. 'a Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, Watson, 104 N. C. 735 10 S. B. 705; 20 S. Ct. 687; Carter v. S., 39 Tex. Anderson v. S., 5 Ark 444. Contra, Cr. 345, 46 S. W. 236, 48 S. W. 508; Leathers v. S., 26 Miss. 73. Smith v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 S. W. 97. "Downs V. Com., 92 Ky. 605, 13 See "Indictments." Ky, L. 820, 18 S. W. 526; Ex parte ^P. v. Earnest, 45 Cal. 29; Ridling 694 hughes' criminal law. § 2673 § 2673. Irregularity in selecting. — Under the terms of the statute of Kansas, no objection going merely to the manner of the selection or drawing of the grand jury will be recognized unless it be one that implies corruption.^ Where the sherifE, without any authority, struck one name from the venire and substituted another person who served as a grand juror, it was held to be very irregular, yet in a misde- meanor case the irregularity was not sufScient to sustain a motion to quash an indictment.^" § 2674. Objection to unlawful grand jury. — If the grand jury was not lawfully assembled and organized, that fact should be pre- sented to the court by a motion to quash or by challenging the ar- ray.^^ An objection to the constitution of the grand jury after the defendant has pleaded to an indictment, and has been tried and con- victed, comes too late.^^ § 2675. Eecord failing to show impaneling. — The objection that the record did not show that a grand jury was impaneled and sworn , comes too late after verdict, and can not be considered.^* § 2676. Organizing grand jury — ^When. — The court may organize the grand jury at any time during the term for which the jurors were summoned to appear.^* § 2677. Organization of grand jury. — Where it appears from the record that the grand jury was called, impaneled and sworn and a V. S., 56 Ga. 601. See Carpenter v. "Hagenow v. P., 188 111. 547, 59 S., 62 Ark. 286, 36 S. "W. 900. N. E. 242; Ellis v. S., 92 Tenn. 85, "S. v. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 8 Pac. 20 S. W. 500; S. v. Griffin, 38 La. 420, 6 Am. C. R. 313; S. v. Cooley, 502; Ter. v. Armljo, 7 N. M. 428, 37 72 Minn. 476, 75 N. W. 729; Sage Pac. 1113; Dailey v. S. (Tex. Cr.), v. S., 127 Ind. 15, 26 N. E. 667; S. 55 S. W. 821; S. v. Corcoran (Idaho), V. Swim, 60 Ark. 587, 31 S. W. 456; 61 Pac. 1034. S. V. Champeau, 52 Vt. 313, 36 Am. '' S. v. Smallwood, 68 Mo. 192, 3 R. 754. See S. v. Wilcox, 104 N. C. Am. C. R. 100; P. v. Griffin, 2 Barb. 847, 10 S. B. 453. Contra, Stoneking (N. Y.) 427; P. v. Robinson, 2 Park, v. S., 118 Ala. 68, 24 So. 47; Comp- Cr. (N. Y.) 235, 311; Brantley v. S., ton V. S., 117 Ala. 56, 23 So. 750. 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 468. '° McElhanon v. P., 92 111. 369. See " Jackson v. S., 102 Ala. 167, 15 S. v. Witt, 33 Or. 594, 55 Pac. 1053; So. 344; Perkins v. S., 92 Ala. 66, 9 S. v. Purco, 51 La. 1082, 25 So. 951. So. 536; S. v. Dillard, 35 La. 1049. "Barrow v P., 73 111. 258; Stone V. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 332. § 2678 GRAND JURY. 695 foreman appointed by the court, that is sufBcient proof of the organ- ization of the grand jury.^'' §2678. Reorganizing grand jury. — Where it appears that the grand jurors have not been legally drawn, the court may discharge them and order the sheriff to summon from the body of the county the required number of persons duly qualified to serve as grand jurors, and for that purpose a venire may issue. ^^ § 2679. Irregularity can not be attacked. — The validity of the or- ganization or the proceedings of a grand jury, though but a grand jury de facto, can not be questioned in a collateral proceeding, as, for example, a contempt proceeding against a witness for defying the au- thority of that body.'-'' § 2680. Grand jury for city court. — In Illinois the same law for the selection of a grand jury for the circuit court applies to the selec- tion of a grand jury to attend city courts. And when a grand jury is selected frc«n the county as provided by law, the court has no author- ity to discharge it and order one selected from the city.^* AeTICLE III. QUALIMCATIONS OF GrAND JuROES. § 2681. Grand juror disqualified — Age. — By the common law an alien, villein, or one convicted of crime, is disqualified to act as a grand juror and may be challenged for cause by any person held for inquisition; but he must interpose his challenge before his indict- ment.^° Under the statute a person over the age of sixty years is; exempt from serving as a grand juror, but not disqualified. It is only a privilege which he may claim or waive.^° § 2682. Appointment of foreman. — It is not necessary that the record should show the appointment of a foreman of a grand jury. If it shows that grand jurors were chosen, selected, impaneled and sworn as a grand jury, and returned an indictment into open court "Williams V. P., 54 111. 424; Stout "Miller v. P., 183 111. 427, 56 N. V. S., 93 Ind. 150; S. v. Stuart, 35 E. 60. La. 1015. '°2 Hawk. P. C, ch. 25, §16; "Empson v. P., 78 111. 248. See Musick v. P., 40 111. 271. See Reich Stone V. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 331. v. S., 53 Ga. 73, 1 Am. C. R. 543, 21 " In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 541, 11 Am. R. .265. Pac. 240. See S. v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 2" Davison v. P., 90 111. 225; Jack- 340, 58 N. W. 386, 41 Am. B. 45. son v. S., 76 Ga. 551. Contra, Kitral v. S., 9 Fla. 9. 696 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2683 indorsed "a true bill" by one of that body as foreman, tliat is suffi- cient.^^ § 2683. Swearing grand jury — And jury commissioner. — An of- ficer having power to administer oaths generally may swear the gran^ jury under the direction of the court, the statute not restricting that duty to the clerk of the court. ^^ An indictment returned by a grand jury selected by a jury commission, one of whose members had not taken the oath of office, will, on motion, be quashed.^' Article IV. Keturn oe Indictments. § 2684. Return of indictment into court. — Where the record re- cites that on "this day comes again the grand jury and presents to the court indictments in the following cases," among which was one against the defendant, it sufficiently shows a return into open court."* Where the record states that the grand jury appeared in open court and duly presented the indictment, a copy of which is set forth, from this we must assume that it was presented according to law. The certificate of the foreman is no part of the indictment, but is the statutory mode of authenticating it."^ The record must affirmatively show the return of the indictment into open court by the grand jury."' § 2685. Return of indictment, not sufScient. — The record, after giving the convening order of the court, states as follows : "This day being the fourth day of said term of said court, the following indict- ment was filed in said court, to wit:" This being all the record showed, it did not appear that the indictment was returned into open court by the grand jury."^ § 2686. Indorsing — "A true bill" — Foreman indorsing. — An in- dictment must be indorsed "a true bill" by the grand jury, verified "Yates V. P., 38 111. 532; S. v. Padgett v. S., 103 Ind. 550, 6 Am. Conge, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 132; P. v. C. R. 53, 3 N. E. 377. Koberts, 6 Cal. 214. ^= Brotherton v. P., 75 N. Y. 159, ==■ Allen V. P., 77 111. 485. 3 Am. C. R. 219. ^S. V. Flint, 52 La. 62, 26 So. 913; '»Yundt v. P., 65 111. 373; Ayles- S. V. Furco, 51 La. 1082, 25 So. 951 worth v. P., 65 111. 302, 1 Am. C. R. (juror). Contra, S. v. Russell, 69 604; Sullivan v. P., 156 111. 95, 40 Minn. 502, 72 N. W. 832. N. B. 288; S. v. Ivey, 100 N. C. 539, ^Fltzpatrick v. P., 98 111. 272; 5 S. E. 407, 7 Am. C. R. 246. Hughes V. P., 116 111. 339, 6 N. E. ^' Kelly v. P„ 39 111. 158. See 55; Kelly v. P., 132 111. 369', 24 N. Rainey v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 72; Epps B. 56; Morton v. P., 47 111. 468; v. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. B. 491, 5 Am. C. R. 519. § 2687 GKAND JURY. 697 by the signature of the foreman of that body. This is indispensable.^* It is sufficient in law if the foreman merely writes his name on the indictment, with no mention of his official character, as foreman, be- cause the latter appears of record. And it is immaterial on what part of the bill the foreman's signature appears.^' The fact that an indictment is indorsed by a different person than the one appointed as the foreman of the grand jury can not avail. It will be presumed that the first person appointed was discharged by the court and the other appointed.^" § 2687. Indorsement of witnesses. — The statute requiring the fore- man of the grand jury to note on the indictment the names of the; witnesses upon whose testimony the same was found is mandatory, and if not so noted, the indictment, on motion, will be quashed. The' state's attorney may note the names instead of the foreman.^^ Article V. Witnesses before Grand Jury. § 2688. Witnesses before grand jury — Subpenas. — Subpenas for witnesses to appear before the grand jury may be lawfully issued by the clerk of the court in vacation, at the request of the prosecuting or state's attorney, although not expressly authorized by statute.^^ § 268D. Witnesses before grand jury — ^Defendant. — The defendant can not produce witnesses before the grand jury nor present any evi- dence to that body, because the grand jury proceedings are absolutely ex parte.^^ Where the defendant was taken from the jail, before the grand jury, and was there compelled to testify regarding his guilt or innocence touching the very matter on which the grand jury indicted him, the indictment should be quashed on motion, without any in- quiry as to whether the indictment was found on his testimony alone, '»Nomaque V. P., Breese (111.) 148; "Andrews v. P., 117 111. 199, 7 N. Alden v. S., 18 Fla. 187; Benson v. B. 265; McKinney v. P., 2 Gilm. S., 68 Ala. 544; S. v. Bowman, 103 (111.) 552; Hartley v. P., 156 111. 236, Ind. 69, 2 N. E. 289, 6 Am. C. R. 296. 40 N. E. 831; Parks v. S., 20 Neb. See Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 519, 31 N. W. 5. Contra, S. v. Hines, 84. Contra, S. v. Magrath, 44 N. J. 84 N. C. 810. L. 227, 4 Am. C. R. 279. "' Baldwin v. S., 126 Ind. 24, 25 ™S. V. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. N. E. 820; O'Hair v. P., 32 111. App. E. 289, 6 Am. C. R. 297; Blume v. S., 277. 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. 771. See also ="U. S. v. Edgerton, 80 Fed. 374; S. V. Fulford, 33 La. 679, 4 Am. G. R. U. S. v. Blodgett, 35 Ga. 336; S. v. 46; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. (3d ed.), § 698. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 95, 105; P. v. '"Mohler v. P., 24 111. 27. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 19 Pac. 161. 698 HUGHES' CKIMINAL LAW. § 2690 or whether the testimony of the defendant influenced the finding un- der the circumstances. It is sufficient that so important a right has been violated to sustain the motion to quash.' 34 § 2690. Grand juror, competent witness. — A grand juror may be called as a witness on the trial of a case to show that a witness told a different story before the grand jury than on the trial.^° § 2691. Grand juror as witness. — A grand juror can not be com- pelled to disclose how he or any other juror voted upon an indict- ment, but he may be required to give the testimony of persons who testified before the grand jury.'° On motion to impeach or set aside an indictment a grand juror can not be compelled to tell how any member of the grand jury voted upon the indictment.'^ Article VI. Others before Grand Jury. § 2692. States attorney attending grand jury. — The district or state's attorney or his assistant may attend the sittings of the grand jury and assist in the examination of witnesses; but he can not law- fully take part in the deliberations of that body.'* § 2693. Stenographer before grand jury. — The fact that a stenog- rapher, in the employ of the attorney for the state, appeared before the grand jury and took down the evidence of witnesses upon whose testimony an indictment was found is no good reason for quashing the indictment, in the absence of anything showing that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.'" . =* Boone v. P., 148 111. 440, 449, 36 Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 463, N. B. 99; S. v. Frolseth, 16 Minn. 9 Am. C. R. 12. 296. Compare S. v. Trauger (Iowa, " S. v. Aleck, 41 La. 83, 5 So. 639; 1898), 77 N. W. 336; P. v. Willis, Miller v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 208; Shat- 52 N. Y. Supp. 808, 23 Misc. 568. See tuck v. S., 11 Ind. 473; Com. v. § 2759. Bradney, 126 Pa. St. 199, 17 Atl. 600; ■"1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 130, note 1; Ex Shoop v. P., 45 111. App. 110; S. v. parte Sontag, 64 Cal. 525, 4 Am. C- Baker, 33 W. Va. 319, 10 S. E. 639; R. 523, 2 Pac. 402; Rapalje Law of S. v. Whitney, 7 Or. 386. Witnesses, § 62. »» S. v. Bates, 148 Ind. 610, 48 N. »Ex parte Sontag, 64 Cal. 525, 4 E. 2; S. v. Brewster, 70 Vt. 341, 40 Am. C. R. 523, 2 Pac. 402. Atl. 1037, 42 L. R. A. 444. See Wil- "Ex parte Sontag, 64 Cal. 525, 2 son v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 916. Pac. 402, 4 Am. C. R. 523; S. v. Contra, S. v. Bowman, 90 Me. 363, 38 Atl. 331. § 2694 GRAND JURY. 699 § 2694. TTnautliorized person before grand jury. — Where a stranger or unauthorized person appears before the grand jury and takes part in their proceedings or in any manner influences that body in their deliberations in the finding of an indictment, such indictment will, on motion, be quashed.** § 2695. Incompetent evidence, with competent. — The fact that one of the witnesses upon whose testimony an indictment was found was not sworn before the grand jury is no ground for quashing the indict- ment unless it further appears that his testimony was the only evi- dence in support of the indictment.*^ Article VII. Presenting Matters to Grand Jury. § 2696, Presenting matters to grand jury. — The usual method of presenting criminal matters to the grand jury is by binding the ac- cused over or by committing him, by a magistrate or justice of the peace. To this method there are some exceptions: (1) Matters of general public import, to which the attention of the grand jury is di- rected by the court. (2) Matters presented by the state's attorney without a previous binding over. (3) Matters which originate by the presentment of a grand jury within their own knowledge.*^ Article VIII. Federal Grand Jury. § 2697. Congress adopting state laws. — The provision of the re- vised statutes of the state of New York prescribing objections that may be taken to the organization of the grand jury are by the act of con- gress made applicable to the federal courts, congress having adopted the laws of the respective states as to the mode of selecting jurors.*' "S. V. Clough, 49 Me. 573; P. v. 405; P. v. Hays, 59 N. Y. Supp. 761, Sellick, 4 N. Y. Cr. 329; Nixon v. S., 28 Misc. 93. See "Indictments." 68 Ala. 535; S. v. Pertig, 98 Iowa ^^Com. v. Green, 126 Pa. St. 531, 139, 67 N. W. 87. See P, v. Shea, 17 Atl. 878, 8 Am. C. R. 393; S. v. 147 N. Y. 78, 41 N. B. 505; S. v. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 8 Pac. 420, 6 Bacon, 77 Miss. 366, 27 So. 563. Am. C. R. 315; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, "Lennard v. S., 104 Ga. 546, 30 § 864; Blaney v. S., 74 Md. 153, 21 S. B. 780; P. V. Molineux, 58 N. Y. Atl. 547; S. v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368; Supp. 155, 27 Misc. 79. See P. v. Groves v. S., 73 Ga. 205. Winant, 53 N. Y. Supp. 695, 24 Misc. « U. S. v. Tallman, 10 Blatchf. (U. 361; P. V. Metropolitan Traction Co., S.) 21, 1 Green C. 419. 50 N. Y. Supp. 117, 12 N. Y. Cr. CHAPTEK LXXVI. INDICTMENTS. Aet. I. Indictment Defined, . . II. Averments to be Positive, III. Defendant's Constitutional Eight, IV. Extrinsic Facts Necessary, V. In Statutory Words, . . VI. Joining Offenses, . . . VII. Principal and Accessory, . VIII. Duplicity, When, . . . IX. Descriptive Averments, X. Implied Averments, . . XI. Time and Place Averments, XII. Negative Averments, . . XIII. Offense, When Barred, XIV. Averments of Ownership, XV. Indicting Corporations, XVI. Venue, Allegation of, . . XVII. Intent, When Essential, . XVIII. Technical Averments, . . XIX. Verbal Inaccuracies, . . XX. Charging an Attempt, XXI. Exhibits: Foreign Language, XXII. Caption; Conclusion, . . XXIII. Quashing Indictments, XXIV. Amending Indictments, XXV. Special Pleas, .... XXVI. Demurrer to Indictments, XXVII. Pleas in Abatement, . . XXVIII. Informations, Complaints, XXIX. Same Accuracy as Indictments, XXX. Informations Amendable, XXXI. Election of Counts, . . XXXII. Numbering Counts; Exhibits, (700) §§ 3698- -2699 § 2700 § 2701- 2703 -2703 §§ 270^3710 §§ 2711- -2715 § 2716 §§ 2717- -3731 § 2722 § 2723 §§ 2734-3736 ?^ 3727- -3731 §§ 2732- -2733 §§ 2734-3737 § 2738 2739 §§ 2740- -3743 §§ 2744-2747 §§ 2748- -2749 §§ 2750- -3751 § 2752 §§ 2753- -2755 §§ 2756- -2760 §§ 3761- -2763 §§ 2764-2766 §§ 2767- -2768 ^§ 2769- -3771 §§ 2772- -3774 § 2775 §§ 2776- -2783 §§ 2784-3785 §§ 2786- -3787 § 2698 INDICTMENTS. 701 Aeticle I. Indictment Defined. § 2698. Indictment defined — When a record. — An indictment is a ■written accusation of one or more persons of a crime or misdemeanor, preferred to and presented upon oath by, a grand jury.^ On the re- turn of an indictment into court by the grand jury it passes into the record of the court, and becomes effectual. It requires no further authentication.'' § 2699. Every material fact to be alleg^ed. — It is an elementary and fundamental principle that every material fact essential to the commission of a criminal offense must be distinctly alleged in the indictment.^ Article II. Averments to be Positive. § 2700. Averments to be positive — Not inferential. — ^The allega- tions of fact should be direct and positive, and not argumentative or inferential.* An indictment, in alleging that the defendant, at the time of his second marriage, knew that his first wife was living, is not an allegation that his first wife was in fact living. This is merely inference and is argumentative.' An indictment alleging that the defendants "did stand by, aid, abet, assist, advise, counsel and encourage" two persons, naming them, "to feloniously, unlawfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of their malice aforethought to kill and murder one Chee Long Tong," is fatally defective. It does not allege that any person was actually murdered.* Article III. Defendant's Constitutional Eight. § 2701. Apprising the accused. — The purpose of the constitu- tional provision giving the accused the right "to demand the nature U Bl. Com. 302. See "Indict- 46 Cal. 65, 2 Green C. R. 426. See ment" generally under eacli crlmi- Keller v. S., 51 Ind. Ill, 1 Am. C. R. nal offense. 217; 1 Blsh. Cr. Proc, §§ 508, 555; = S. V. Ivey, 100 N. C. 539, 5 S. E. S. v. Nelson, 79 Minn. 373, 82 N. 407, 7 Am. C. R. 246; S. v. Cox, 6 W. 650. Ired. (N. C.) 440; 4 Bl. Com. 301. ^Prichard v. P., 149 111. 54, 36 N. "Williams v. P., 101 111. 385. E. 103; Anderson v. S., 38 Pla. 3. 'Prichard v. P., 149 111. 50, 36 N. 20 So. 765; S. v. Paul, 69 Me. 215; E. 103; Com. v. Dean, 110 Mass. 64, Dreyer v. P., 176 111. 597, 52 N. E. 2 Green C. R. 260; S. v. La Bore, 372. 26 Vt. 765; Dreyer V. P., 176 111. 597, "P. v. Crenshaw, 46 Cal. 65, 2 52 N. E. 372; Maynard v. P., 135 111. Green C. R. 426; Anderson v. S. 416, 25 N. E. 740; P. v. Crenshaw, 38 Fla. 3, 20 So. 765 (receiving). 702 hughes' criminal law. ^ 2702 and cause of the accusation against him" is to secure the accused such specific designation of the offense charged as will enable him to prepare fully for his defense, and plead the judgment in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same ofEenseJ To charge in the in- dictment that the defendant, "a record, to wit, the collector's book of Bloomington township, McLean county and state of Illinois, then and there, feloniously, willfully and maliciously, did deface and falsify, contrary, etc.," sufficiently identified the ofEense, and stated the facts apprising the accused with reasonable certainty of the na- ture and cause of the accusation against him.^ An indictment charged that the defendant, at a certain time and place named, com- mitted "the infamous crime against nature upon and with L. K., a man then and there being." Held sufficient to apprise the defend- ant of the nature of the charge against hiin, being in the terms and language of the statute.' § 2702. Apprising defendant — Defective. — The indictment charged that the accused, "on the 23d day of February, A.D. 1871, in the county and state aforesaid, "did feloniously, willfully, premeditatedly, and with malice aforethought, in and upon one Daniel Jackson, with a shot- gun, make an assault, and him, the said Daniel Jackson, with the shot- gun aforesaid, did then and there, feloniously, willfully, premedi- tatedly, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas." Held defective, in that it does not state the manner and circumstances attending the use of the gun with such certainty as would ordinarily enable a defendant to make a complete defense, if innocent.^^ Article IV. Extrinsic Facts ITecessary. § 2703. Averment of extrinsic facts, when. — When the subject- matter of the indictment can not be brought within the meaning of ' "West V. P., 137 111. 196, 27 N. E. v. P., 137 111. 198, 27 N. B. 34, 34 N. 34, 34 N. E. 254; U. S. v. Simmons, E. 254. 96 U. S. 362; Murphy v. S., 28 Miss. "Honselman v. P., 168 111. 174, 48 637; Evans v. U. S., 153 U. S. 584. N. E. 304. The statute relating to 14 S. Ct. 934, 939. 9 Am. C. R. 668; the crime against nature is not lim- S. V. Mace, 76 Me. 64; Landring- ited to the act of sodomy, hut in- ham V. S., 49 Ind. 186; Pettihone v. eludes within its meaning, all forms V. S., 148 V. S. 197, 13 S. Ct. 542; of hestial or unnatural copulation. In re Greene, 52 Fed. 104. as, by using the mouth : Honselman = Loehr v. P., 132 111. 508, 24 N. v. P., 168 111. 174, 48 N. E. 304. E. 68; Miller v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) "Edwards v. S., 27 Ark. 493, 1 233 ; Cannady V. P., 17 111. 158; Lyons Green C. R. 742-3. See "Homicide." V. P., 68 111. 273; Cole v. P., 84 111. But contra, P. v. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29, 216; Puller v. P., 92 111. 182; West 1 Green C. R. 683. § 2704 INDICTMENTS. 703 the statute without the aid of extrinsic evidence, it is necessary, be- sides charging the offense in the words of the statute, to aver such facts and circumstances as may be necessary to bring the matter with- in the meaning of it, so as to characterize the crime alleged and to make it judicially appear, in order that the accused may be informed of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him.^^ In an indictment on a statufe — when the language of the statute creating the offense does not describe it — the pleader may be bound to set forth the acts specifically, to apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged. ^^ Article V. In Statutory Words. § 2704. Words of statute not sufficient. — In an indictment upon a statute it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words, of themselves, fully, directly and expressly, without any uncertainty, set forth all the elements necessary to con- stitute the offense intended to be punished; and the fact that the statute in question (relating to the uttering and publishing forged documents), read in the light of the common law, and of other stat- utes on the like matter, enables the court to infer the intent of the legislature, does not dispense with the necessity of alleging in the in- dictment all the facts necessary to bring the ease within that intent.^* § 2705. Statutory words insufficient — Bank insolvent. — An indict- ment charging that the defendant, the cashier of a certain bank, re- ceived from a person named a certain sum of money on deposit, "then and there knowing and having good reason to believe that said bank was then and there insolvent, without then and there or at any other "S.v. "West, 10 Tex. 555; Williams v. P., 81 111. 600; P. v. Wilber, 4 v. S., 42 Miss. 328; Davis v. Com., Park. ,Cr. (N. Y.) 19; Clark v. S., 13 Bush (Ky.) 318, 2 Am. C. R. 164; 19 Ala. 552. See Titus v. S., 49 N. Jesse V. S., 28 Miss. 109; Huntsman J. L. 36, 7 Atl. 621, 7 Am. C. R. 255; V. S., 12 Tex. App. 646; S. v. Fiske, U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 362; S. 66 Vt. 434, 29 Atl. 633, 10 Am. C. R. v. Fiske, 66 Vt. 434, 29 Atl. 633, 10 11. See Evans v. U. S., 153 U. S. Am. C. R. 11; S. v. Smith, 17 R. I. 584, 14 S. Ct. 934, 939, 9 Am. C. R. 371, 22 Atl. 282; S. v. Bruce, 5 Or. 668; Cochran v. P., 175 111. 34, 51 68. N. E. 845. "U. S. V. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 4 "West V. P., 137 111. 196, 27 N. Am. C. R. 246, citing Com. v. Pll- E. 34, 34 N. B. 254; Johnson v. P., burn, 119 Mass. 297. The indictment 113 111. 99; Cochran v. P., 175 111. failed to allege that the defendant 34, 51 N. E. 845; Sullivan v. S., 67 knew the document to be forged Miss. 346, 7 So. 275, 8 Am. C. R. and counterfeit and was for that rea- 658; McNair v. P., 89 111. 443; Kibs son defective. 704 hughes' ceiminal law. § 2706 time previously informing said depositor of such insolvent condition of said bank," is defective in not alleging the insolvency of the bank, though the indictment is in the language of the statute.^^ § 2706. Statutory words not sufficient — ^Embezzlement. — Charging the defendant with the crime of embezzlement in the language of the statute is not sufficient. The defendant's fiduciary character must be alleged." § 2707. Statutory words not sufficient — ^Hiring horse. — Cases oc- cur where, from the nature of the offense, greater particularity is nec- essary than to describe a statutory offense in the words of the statute.^'^ The statute provides that "every person who shall hire any horse or team, or use any horse or team hired by others, and shall willfully make any false statement or misrepresentation relative to the distance, time, place or manner of using or driving the same, with intent to de- fraud the owner thereof, or any other person, shall be punished." Al- leging- the offense in the language of this statute is not sufficient. It is absolutely necessary that the misrepresentation and the person tO' whom made should be alleged with particularity.^* § 2708. Words of statute sufficient. — Where the offense is purely statutory, having no reference to the common law, and specifically sets out what acts shall constitute the offense, it is, as a general rule, sufficient in an indictment to charge the defendant with the acts com- ing fully within the statutory description, in the substantial words of the statute, without any further expansion of the matter.^® If the "S. V. Bardwell, 72 Miss. 535, 18 L. 1444, 55 S. "W. 720; Sparrenberger So. 377, 10 Am. G. R. 71. v. S., 53 Ala. 481, 2 Am. C. R. 470; "Moore v. U. S., 160 U. S. 268, 10 Bolen v. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. E. Am. C. R. 284, 16 S. Ct. 294. The 408; Graham v. P., 181 111. 477, 55 statute in this case provides that N. B. 179; West v. P., 137 111. 200, "any person who shall embezzle, 27 N. E. 34, 34 N. E. 254; Fuller v. steal or purloin any money, prop- P., 92 111. 184; McCutcheon v. P., 69 erty, record, voucher, or valuable 111. 602; Cole v. P., 84 111. 216; War- thing whatever," of the United riner v. P., 74 111. 346; Lyons v. P., States, shall be punished. See "Em- 68 111. 274; S. v. Trolson, 21 Nev. bezzlement." . 419, 32 Pac. 930, 9 Am. C. R. 245; " S. V. Jackson, 39 Conn. 229, 1 S. v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 303, 3 Am. G. R. Green C. R. 294; S. v. Mitchell (W. 64; P. v. Tomlinson, 66 Gal. 345, 5 Va.), 35 S. B. 845. Pac. 509; Com. v. Bennett, 118 Mass. "S. V. Jackson, 39 Conn. 229, 1 451; S. v. Guiton, 51 La. 155, 24 So. Green C. R. 294. 784; P. v. Knowlton, 122 Cal. 357, "Loehr v. P., 132 111. 509, 24 N. 55 Pac. 141; Paynter v. Com., 21 Ky. E. 68; S. V. Agee, 68 Mo. 264, 3 Am. L. 1562, 55 S. W. 687. C. R. 9; Com. v. Grinstead, 21 Ky. § 2709 INDICTMENTS. 705 iBdietment states the offense in the language of the statute which cre- ated the offense, that, under section 468 of the Criminal Code of Illi- nois, is ordinarly sufficient.^" § 2709. Words of statute — Statutory rule. — Section 6 of Division 11 of the Criminal Code of Illinois is a general rule of pleading (stat- ing the offense in the language of the statute), applicable to all cases within' its terms, without regard to the date of the enactment of the statute under which the cases shall arise.^^ § 2710. Words equivalent to statute. — It is not necessary to use the words of the statute, provided words of equivalent meaning are used, in stating the offense in the indictment.^^ Article VI. Joining Offenses. § 2711. Distinct felonies can not be joined. — Separate and dis- tinct felonies can not be joined in different counts in the same indict- ment.^' Felonies and misdemeanors may be Joined in the same in- dictment, though based on different statutes, but all the counts must relate to one and the same transaction.^* Forging three different re- ceipts of three different persons to the same document, to wit, a fee bill, constitutes three different offenses, and they can not be joined in the same indictment, being felonies.^^ "Mettler v. P., 135 111. 413, 25 N. =^* Herman v. P., 131 111. 594, 22 B. 748; Loehr v. P., 132 111. 509, 24 N. B. 471; Thompson v. P., 125 111. N. B. 68; P. V. West, 106 N. Y. 293, 256, 17 N. E. 749; Lyons v. P., 68 12 N. E. 610; Seacord v. P., 121 111. 111. 271; George v. P., 167 111. 417, 47 629, 13 N. E. 194; S. v. Sutton, 116 N. E. 741; Glover v. S., 109 Ind. 391, Ind. 527, 19 N. E. 602, 8 Am. C. R. 10 N. E. 282, 7 Am. C. R. 117; 452. Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531; S. v. "Lyons v. P., 68 111. 274. Fltzslmon, 18 R. I. 236, 27 Atl. 446, ='Rlggs V. S., 104 Ind. 261, 3 N. E. 9 Am. C. R. 345; Cawley v. S., 37 886, 6 Am. C. R. 395; S. v. Guiton, 51 Ala. 152; S. v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, La. 155, 24 So. 784. "Personal in- 9 Atl. 559; Staeger v. Com., 103 Pa. jury" Is equivalent to "bodily in- St. 469, 472; Stevick v. Com., 7S jury:" S. v. Clayborne, 14 Wash. Pa. St. 460; Stevens v. S., 66 Md. 622, 45 Pac. 303. 202, 7 Atl. 254; S. v. Lincoln, 49 N, ''Kotter V. P., 150 111. 441, 445, H. 464; Beasley v. P., 89 111. 578. 37 N. B. 932; Glover v. S., 109 Ind. See West v. P., 137 111. 202, 27 N. E, 391, 10 N. E. 282, 7 Am. C. R. 118; 34, 34 N. E. 254. P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 400, 33 N. W. '' Kotter v. P., 150 111. 441, 37 N. 821, 7 Am. C. R. 345; Bennett v. P., B. 932; Tobin v. P., 104 111. 567. 96 111. 602; Lyons v. P., 68 111. 273; See "Indictments" generally, under Langford v. P., 134 111. 450, 25 N. "Burglary" and each of the other ii. 1009. crimes. hughes' c. li. — 45 706 hughes' criminal law. § 2712 . § 2712. Joining offenses — One offense part of another. — Where one felony is introductory to and forms part of another felony (as the same person forging an instrument and passing it), they may be joined in the same indictment, though but one conviction can be had on the indictment.^" § 2713. Joining cognate offenses. — It has always been recognized as proper practice to unite cognate offenses in the same indictment, and, indeed, the court will, in a proper case, require a consolidation of separate indictments and treat them as counts in one indictment, where the accused will suffer no oppression by such practice.^' The offense of burglary and an assault with intent to commit rape are not cognate offenses which may be Joined in the same indictment.^* § 2714. Joining distinct misdemeanors. — Separate and distinct of- fenses, where they are all misdemeanors of a kindred character and charged against the same person, such as several distinct, unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors, may be joined in separate counts in ■one indictment or information.^* § 2715. One crime element of another. — Where one crime becomes a constituent element of another, such crime must be pleaded with the same formality as is required when it forms the sole basis of the indictment.^" Article VII. Principal and Accessory. ^ 2716. Accessory is principal. — ^Under the statute of Illinois, an accessory at or before the fact is a principal, and must be indicted as principal, and not otherwise.^^ Charging in the indictment that the defendants did aid, counsel, advise and abet another person, naming him, to commit the crime of murder, as alleged against the perpe- =« Parker v. P., 97 111. 37. »» Titus v. S., 49 N. J. L. 36, 7 Atl. « S. V. Toole, 106 N. C. 736, 11 S. 621, 9 Cr. L. Mag. 354. See Johnson E. 168, 8 Am. C. R. 611; Whar. Cr. v. P., 22 111. 316; Landringham v. P., PI. & Pr. (9th ed.), § 910; S. v. Mc- 49 Ind. 186, 1 Am. C. R. 106. Neill, 93 N. C. 552; Com. v. Miller, "Coates v. P., 72 111. 303; Ussel- 107 Pa. St. 276, 5 Am. C. R. 301. ton v. P., 149 111. 614, 36 N. E. 952; See 2 McClaln Cr. L., § 1275. Pixmer v. P., 153 111. 129, 38 N. E. "'S. V. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, 9 667; Dempsey v. P., 47 111. 326; Am. C. R. 343, 27 Atl. 446. Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 383. See ™ S. V. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 8 Pac. "Principal and Accessory." Contra, 420, 6 Am. C. R. 214; 2 McClain Cr. P. v. Rozelle, 78 Cal. 86, 20 Pac. 36; L., § 1275. P. V. Campbell, 40 Cal. 129. § 2717 INDICTMENTS. 707 irator, is not sufficient.'^ Two persons were indicted jointly for mur- der, the indictment containing two counts. The first count charged one of them as principal and the other as accessory; and the second count charged the latter as principal and the former as accessory. Held proper pleading.'* Article VIII. Duplicity^ When. ' § 2717. Duplicity — Several offenses in one count. — The statute of Maine subjects traveling dealers and peddlers in intoxicating and fermented liquors to a penalty of not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars "for each offer to take an order, and for each order taken and for each sale so made." This statute defines three substan- tive offenses, each complete in itself, and to join them in the same count would make the indictment bad for duplicity.'* §2718. Duplicity — Two felonies. — ^A count in the information charged that a female was taken away by the accused for prostitu- tion and eoneuoinage. This is a joinder of two distinct felonies in the same count. Two or more offenses may, under proper circumstances, be joined in one information or indictment, but they must be in sep- arate counts. There are exceptions to this rule.^' An indictment which alleged that the defendant made a forcible entry into two closes of meadow or pasture was held bad.'* §2719. Duplicity — Nuisance by sale of liquors.— rAn indictment charging the accused of the crime of nuisance, by keeping a place for the unlawful sale of liquors and allowing gambling and drunken- ness therein, and of selling intoxicating liquor to minors, habitual drunkards and to intoxicated persons, to the disturbance of others, and contrary to law, is not bad for duplicity." ==Usselton v. P., 149 111. 612, 36 Speart's Case, 2 Rolle Abr. 81; King N. B. 952; Pixmer v. P., 153 111. 128, v. North, 6 Dowl. & R. 143; Rex v. 38 N. E. 667. Stoughton, 2 Strange 900; Com. v. ''P. V. Valencia, 43 Cal. 552, 1 Grey, 2 Gray (Mass.) 501); P. v. Green C. R. 745. Hood, 6 Cal. 236; Whiteside v. S., 4 "S. V. Smith, 61 Me. 386, 2 Green Coldw. (Tenn.) 175; Slover v. Ter., C. R. 463; S. v. Burgess, 40 Me. 5 Okl. 506, 49 Pac. 1009. 592-4. " S. V. Winebrenner, 67 Iowa 230, " S. V. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 6 Am. C. R. 290, 25 N. W. 146. See Pac. 899, 5 Am. C. R. 4. P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 6 =• S. v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 Atl.^ Am. C. R. 276, 23 N. W. 594. 814, 10 Am. C. R. 234 (citing 708 hughes' criminal law. § 272Q § 2720. Duplicity — Poisoning several by one act. — Administering poison to three persons at the same time by the same act, or assaulting several persons by the same act, or murdering two or more persons by the same act, may be alleged in the same count.'* § 2721. Duplicity — Several acts enumerated. — Where the statute enumerates several things or acts in the alternative it is usually con- strued as creating but a single offense, and all the acts may be alleged in the same count of the indictment by using the word "and" to con- nect the several acts enumerated in the statute.'* Article IX. Descriptive Averments. § 2722. Description, when surplusage. — Whenever a description or averment can be stricken out without affecting the charge against the prisoner, and without vitiating the indictment, it may, on the trial, be treated as surplusage and rejected.*" Any words used in describing the offense which are not part of the statutory description of the offense may be treated as surplusage.*^ An indictment charged that the defendant committed a forgery by the alteration of an order drawn by one Grubb "on John Irwin, Eobert Irwin and John Will- iams, composing the firm of J. Irwin & Co.," with the intent to defraud "John Irwin, Eobert Irwin and John Williams, composing the firm of Irwin & Co." Another indictment was found against the defendant precisely like the first, with the exception that John Irwin, Eobert Irwin and John Williams were described as "composing the firm of John Irwin & Co:" Held that the indictments were the same, the ''Ben V. S., 22 Ala. 9; Chivarrlo 367. See S. v. June (Kan.), 61 Pac. V. S., 15 Tex. App. 330; Wilkinson 804 (false pretense). V. S., 77 Miss. 705, 27 So. 639; Whar. "l Chltty Cr. L., 211-216; 2 Rus- Cr. Ev., § 589. Contra, P. v. War- sell Cr. 707; Durham v. P., 4 Scam, ren, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 338. (111.) 172; Sutton y. P., 145 111. 286, ="Blemer v. P., 76 111. 271; Brad- 34 N. E. 420; Morgenstern v. Com., ley V. S., 20 Pla. 738, 5 Am. C. R. 27 Gratt. (Va.) 1018, 2 Am. C. R. 620; Seacord v. P., 121 111. 629, 13 479; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 607. See N; E. 194; Rosenbarger v. S., 154 Childress v. S., 86 Ala. 77, 5 So. 775; Ind. 425, 56 N. E. 914; Com. v. Kolb, Paine v. S., 89 Ala. 26, 8 So. 133; 13 Pa. Sup. Ct. 347; Howard v. P. Com. v. Lamb, 67 Mass. 493; Kollen- (Colo.), 61 Pac. 595; Thompson berger v. P., 9 Colo. 233, 11 Pac. 101; V. S., 105 Tenn. 177, 58 S. W. 213; S. v. Lee Ping Bow, 10 Or. 27; S. S. V. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452; S. v. v. Reece, 27 W. Va. 375. Biell, 21 Wis. 204; Adams v. P., 25 " S. v. Shenton, 22 Minn. 311; S. Colo. 532, 55 Pac. 806; Marshall v. v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154; S. v. Hatch, S., 123 Ind. 128, 23 N. B. 1141; S. 94 Me. 58, 46 Atl. 796. V. Townsend, 7 Wash. 462, 35 Pac. ^ 2723 INDICTMENTS. 709 description being surplusage.'*^ Under a statute which provides thaf ^'if any person shall unlawfully know and abuse any female child under the age of ten years he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life," an information charging that the defendant, "with force and against her will, did ravish and carnally know" the child, in- stead of -charging in the language of the statute, "did unlawfully know and abuse," sufficiently states the offense. The words "with force and against her will," may be treated as surplusage.** Article X. Implied Aveements. § 2723. Implied averments — ^When not implied. — ^Whatever is in- cluded or necessarily implied from an express allegation need not be otherwise averred: as, to allege in the indictment the detention of a record from the office to which it belongs necessarily implies a deten- tion of it from the officer or lawful custodian of the same.** On a charge of breaking and entering a railroad car, with intent to steal, the ownership of the car will not be implied from an allegation in the indictment that the car was on a certain named railway located in the county.*" Article XI. Time and Place Averments. § 2724, Place, when material. — Where an act becomes a crime when done in a particular place the indictment or complaint should set out the act as done in that particular place, otherwise it will be de- fective.*' § 2725. Time, "on or about." — Charging that the offense was com- mitted "on or about" a certain day has been uniformly held to be in- definite and fatal upon demurrer or motion to quash.*^ "Durham v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 173. Mass. 320; S. v. Cunningham, 66 "S. V. Erickson, 45 Wis. 86, 3 Iowa 97, 23 N. W. 280. Am. C. R. 339; Eggart v. S., 40 Fla. "Cooper v. S., 89 Ga. 222, 15 S. 527, 25 So. 144. E. 291. " Baysinger v. P., 115 111. 419, 5 " S. v. Turnbull, 78 Me. 392, 6 Atl. N. B. 375; Scott v. P., 141 111. 204, 1, 6 Am. C. R. 108. 30 N. E. 329; Maynard V. P., 135 111. "Morgan v. S., 13 Fla. 671, 1 427, 25 N. E. 740; Halleck v. S., 11 Green C. R. 362. See P. v. Schatz, Ohio 400; P. v. Ah Bean, 77 Cal. 12, 15 N. Y. Cr. 38, 64 N. Y. Supp. 127, 18 Pac. 815; Com. v. Butland, 119 50 App. Div. 544. Contra. Scott v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 61. 710 hughes' criminal law. § 2726 § 2726. Tim©— "Then and there."— If the words "then and there" precede every material allegation (after the time and place have heen stated at the beginning of the count) it is sufficient.** Time and place ought in general to be mentioned, not merely at the beginning of the indictment or count, but must be repeated to every issuable and triable fact.« Article XII. Negative Averments. § 2727. Exceptions, when to negative, when not. — ^Where the same clause defining a crime contains an exception it is necessary to negative such exception in the indictment.®" In alleging an exception when re- quired to do so, it need not be done by using the exact words of the proviso ; equivalent words may be used.®^ Where the exception is not. incorporated with the clause defining the offense, nor connected with it in any manner by words of reference, it need not be negatived, as, in such cases, it is not a constituent part of the offense, but is a matter of defense and must be plead or given in evidence by the accused.®^ § 2728. Words indicating negative. — The word "except" is not necessary in order to constitute an exception within the rule. The words "unless," "other than," "not being," "not having," etc., have the same legal effect and require the same form of pleading.®* § 2729. The word "or" meaning "to wit."— When "or" in a statute is used in the sense of "to wit," that is, explaining what precedes, « Palmer v. P., 138 111. 362, 28 N. 46 Atl. 757; U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. E. 130; S. V. Hurley, 71 Me. 354; (U. S.) 168, 2 Green C. R. 90; Com. 10 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law 588. See v. Hart, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 132, 2 S.v. Taylor, 21 Mo. 480; S.v, Bailey, Green C. R. 248. See also s'v 21 Mo. 488; S. v. Cherry, 3 Murph. O'Donnell, 10 R. I. 472, 2 Green c' (N. C.) 7. R. 378; S. v. V/illiams, 20 Iowa 98;' "Wiedemann v. P., 92 111. 314; S. v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500 1 Greea .Tackson v. P., 18 111. 269; 1 Bish. C. R. 163. Cr. Proc, § 408; 1 Bish. Cr. L., " Beasley v. P., 89 111 577 $§ 219, 222. But see Bobel v. P., "^U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall '(U S) 173 111. 26, 50 N. E. 322. Contra, S. 168, 2 Green C. R. 95- Com v Hart v. Willis, 78 Me. 70, 2 Atl. 848, 6 11 Cush. (Mass.) 13o' 2 Green C r' Am. C. R. 287; Fisk v. S., 9 Neb. 250; S. v. Abbey, 29 Vt 66- Rex v" 62, 2 N. W. 381; Com. v. Keyon, 83 Baxter, 2 East P. C. 781; Dreyer v* Mass. 6; Com. v. Langley, 80 Mass. P., 188 111. 44, 58 N. E. 620 See s' 21 ; S. V. Marchant, 15 R. I. 539, 9 v. Knowles, 90 Md. 646 45 Atl 877* Atl. 902; S. V. Sparrow, 2 Tayl. (N. 49 L. R. A. 695. C.) 93; Welch v. S., 104 Ind. 347, ""Com. v. Hart, 11 Cush (Mass) 3 N. E. 850, 5 Am. C. R. 450. 130, 2 Green C. R. 251- i East P C "Beasley v. P., 89 111. 577; Metz- 166, 167; S. v. Butler, 17 Vt 145* ker V. P.. 14 111. 102; Lequat v. P., Com. v. Maxwell, 2 Pick fMn^sV 11 111. 331; S. V. Marks (N. J. L.), 139. ' " ^"^'''"'■' § 2730 INDICTMENTS.] 711 making it signify the same thing, an indictment will he well framed which adopts the words of the statute."** § 2730. Date, to be positive — ^Impossible date. — The indictment must aver the date positively : it can not be determined by inference ; and it must set forth some particular day within the statute of limita- tions.' ° An indictment which states an impossible date, as "the 16th day of August, 18184," should, on motion, be quashed."® § 2731. Date alleged presumed true. — In determining the suf- ficiency of an indictment the court is to take the date alleged as the true date."^ Article XIII. Offense, When Baeeed. § 2732. Offense, barred by limitation — ^Averments. — ^Accused per- sons may avail themselves of the statute of limitations by special plea or by evidence under the general issue, but courts of justice, if the statute contains exceptions, will not quash an indictment because it appears upon its face that it was not found within the period pre- scribed in the limitation, as such a proceeding would deprive the pros- ecutor of the right to reply or give evidence, as the case may be, that the defendant fled from justice and was within the exception con- tained in the statute. ^^ But on the contrary, other courts have held that if, from the face of the indictment, the offense is shown to have been barred by the statute of limitation, the indictment should be quashed.^' § 2733. "Tenor" — Strict accuracy — "As follows." — The word tenor binds the pleader to the strictest accuracy."" "As follows" is quite "Blemer v. P., 76 111. 271. See 168, 2 Green C. R. 94; Hatwood v. Cunningham v. S., 5 W. Va. 508, 2 S., 18 Ind. 492; Com. v. Rufener, 28 Green C. R. 669. But contra, S. v. Pa. St. 260; S. v. Hussey, 7 Iowa Green, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 131, 1 Green 409; S. v. Howard, 15 Rich. (S. C.) C. R. 460. 282. Contra, McLane v. S., 4 Ga. ™Whitesides v. P., Breese (111.) 340; P. v. Miller, 12 Cal. 294; S. v. 21; S. v. Penlason, 79 Me. 117, 8 Atl. Bryan, 19 La. 435. 459, 7 Am. C. R. 495. Contra, S. v. ™ Garrison v. P., 87 111. 97; Lamkin Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 7 Pac. 591, 6 v. P., 94 111. 503; Rosenberger v. Am. C. R. 302. Com., 118 Pa. St. 77, 11 Atl. 782; ■" Murphy v. S., 106 Ind. 96, 7 Am. S. v. Hoke, 84 Ind. 137. See S. v. C. R. 264, 5 N. E. 767; Com. v. Doyle, Robinson, 29 N. H. 274; P. v. Miller, 110 Mass. 103, 2 Green C. R. 261. 12 Cal. 29. "Dreyer v. P., 176 111. 590, 598, "^ Brown v. P., 66 111. 346, citing 52 N. E. 372. Rex v. Powell, 2 East P. C. 976. "*U. S. V. Cook, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 712 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2734 as certain as the words, "in the words and figures as follows," in set- ting out and introducing a document into an indictment."' Article XIV. Averments of Ownership. § 2734. Stating ownership — "Belonging to." — In alleging the own- ership of a house it is sufficient to designate it as the house "of," or ^'belonging to," the owner.''^ § 2735. Averment of specific ownership. — Alleging in the indict- ment that a car broken into was in the possession, care, control and custody of the company, sufficiently alleges a special ownership of the car."' § 2736. Averment relating to company. — If the charge is an intent to injure a body of persons by a company name, all the persons named should be stated, unless such company is incorporated."* § 2737. Ownership — Corporation owner. — Alleging the property to be that of the American Merchants' Union Express Company, without stating it to be a corporation, is defective pleading."' It is not neces- sary to the sufficiency of an indictment that it should allege either that the owner of the property is a corporation, or that as such it is capable of owning property."" Article XV. Indicting Corporations. § 2738. Indicting corporations. — Corporations may be indicted at common law, and it necessarily follows that they may be brought into court by compulsion."'' At common law the proper mode of bringing into court a corporation charged by indictment with a criminal offense was done by the issue of a summons and its service upon the principal " Clay V. P., 86 111. 150. ""'S. v. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 1 S. W. "^ S. V. Fox, 80 Iowa 312, 45 N. W. 336, 6 Am. C. R. 99, citing P. v. Mc- 874; Com. v. Williams, 56 Mass. 582; Closkey, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 57; S. V. Tyrrell, 98 Mo. 354, 11 S. W. Com. v. Williams, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 734. 582; S. V. Scripture, 42 N. H. 485. «='S. V. Mclntyre, 59 Iowa 264, 13 "Com. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., N. W. 286. See Darter v. Com., 165 Pa. St. 162, 9 Am. C. R. 370, 30 9 Ky. L. 277, 5 S. W. 48. Atl. 836; S. v. Security Bank, 2 S. D. "Staaden v. P., 82 111. 434; Wal- 538, 51 N. W. 337; Boston, etc., R. R. lace V. P., 63 111. 452. v. S., 32 N. H. 215; S. v. Baltimore, ""Wallace v. P., 63 111. 452; Pells etc., R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362; 3 Greenl. V. S., 20 Pla. 774, 5 Am. C. R. 97. ■ Ev., § 9a. § 2739 INDICTMENTS. 713 or head of the company, and if it did not appear, as it only could appear, by a duly constituted attorney, a distringas was awarded under which its goods and lands were seized to compel an appearance. But under statutory law a summons seems to be the only process that can issue in criminal and civil actions alike.*' Article XVI. Venue, Allegation of. § 2739. Venue, county sufficient — "County aforesaid." — Alleging the ofEense in the indictment to have been committed in the county where it is found is sufficient, without any particular designation of the precise locality."" The venue in a second count is sufficiently alleged by the use of the words "county aforesaid.""* If the indict- ment be preceded by the proper venue clause in the margin, "state of Illinois, Lee county," then if in the body of the indictment Lee county be alleged without the use of "said" or "aforesaid," it is sufficient.'^ Article XVII. Intent, When Essential. § 2740. Intent, statutory words. — Where intent is made an essen- tial element of an offense as defined by statute, by using the words "with intent," an indictment omitting these words will be defective.''* § 2741. Knov^ledge, when essential. — In an indictment against an oflficer for corrupt misbehavior in office it is necessary that an act im- puted as misbehavior be distinctly and substantially charged to have been done corruptly and with knowledge that it was wrong.'* § 2742. Intent— "Willfully and corruptly"— "Feloniously."— An indictment charging a justice of the peace with malfeasance in office was held defective in that it did not allege that the accused "willfully and corruptly" refused to issue subpenas.'* Where the offense is cre- "S. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 89 Am. C. R. 180; S. v. Harris, 34 Mo. N. C. 584, 4 Am. C. R. 138, citing 347; Grayson v. S., 37 Tex. 228. But Boston, etc., R. R. v. S., 32 N. H. see S. v. Hays, 41 Tex. 526. 215. "Boyd v. Com., 77 Va. 52, 4 Am. " S. V. Sneed, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 450, C. R. 145, citing S. v. Buxton, 2 6 Am. C. R. 298, 1 S. W. 282. Swan (Tenn.) 57; Jacobs v. Com., 2 " Noe v. P., 39 111. 97. Leigh (Va.) 709; P. v. Coon, 15 "Hanrahan v. P., 91 111. 144. See Wend. (N. Y.) 277. Noe v. P., 39 111. 97. "Jones v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 477; " S. V. Child, 42 Kan. 611, 22 Pac. Wickersham v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 721; Hess v. S., 45 N. J. L. 445, 4 129. 714 hughes' criminal law. § 2743 ated by statute, and the statute does not use the word "feloniously," there is a difference of opinion among the state courts whether the word must be put in the indictments^ §2743. "TTnlawfuUy," "willfully," essential.— Where the word "unlawfully" is used in the description of the offense as defined by statute an indictment will be bad in omitting to describe the act as having been unlawfully done.'" Where a statute reads, that "if any person shall willfully kill" certain named animals without the consent of the owner, he shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, and the indictment charged that the defendant did unlawfully shoot and kill, it is defective in not using the word "willfuUy."^^ Article XVIII. Technical Averments. § 2744. Ornaments or devices on documents. — ^In setting out an in- strument in the indictment, it has never been held necessary to set out the marks and cyphers, ornaments, devices or mottoes on the docu- ment. ^^ § 2745. Agent's authority — Immaterial. — Where an indictment purports to have been drawn by an agent signing the principal's name it is not necessary that the indictment should aver the authority of the agent, or aver that it was so drawn.''' § 2746. Keeping open store — "Shop" or "store." — An instrument was intended to be founded on the clause of the statute to punish Sab- bath breaking, which is in these words: "or who, being a merchant or shop-keeper (druggists excepted), keeps open store on that day." The count of an indictment following the words of the statute, except that it substituted the word "shop" for the word "store," alleging, not that the defendant did keep open store, but that he did keep open shop on the Sabbath day, was held defective and held to charge no offense.*" " Bannon v. U. S., 156 U. S. 464, 9 " Cross v. P., 47 111. 157. Am. C. R. 340, 15 S. Ct. 467; 1 Bish. "Cross v. P., 47 111. 156; Whar. Cr. Proc, § 535. See Bl. Com. 307. Cr. Bv. (8th ed.), § 696. "Ter. v. Miera, 1 N. M. 387; "" Sparrenberger v. S., 53 Ala. 481, Ter. v. Armljo, 7 N. M. 571, 37 2 Am. C. R. 471; Canney v. S., 19 N. Pac. 1117; S. v. Lutterloh, 22 Tex. H. 135. See Com. v. Wise, 110 Mass.' 210. 181, 2 Green C. R. 264. "Com. v. Turner, 8 Bush (Ky.) 1, 1 Green C. R. 293. § 2747 INDICTMENTS. 715 § 2747. Indictment bad — "Tenement" not house. — Charging in the indictment that the defendant did keep and maintain a certain com- mon, ill governed and "disorderly tenement," does not state the com- mon law offense of keeping a "disorderly house." The word "tene- ment," though it includes a house or building, has a much more en- larged signification.*^ Article XIX. Verbal Inaccuracies. § 2748. Verbal inaccuracies immaterial. — The law is well settled that verbal or grammatical inaccuracies which do not affect the sense are not fatal, nor is mere misspelling fatal. And even where the sense or the word may be ambiguous this will not be fatal if it is sufficiently shown by the context in what sense the phrase or word was intended to be used.*^ But the omission of a letter in spelling a word which is essential to the description of the offense will render the indictment fatally defective, as "larcey" for larceny.*' § 2749. Description by initials. — The name of the person assaulted may be described by his initials when he is as well known by that as by his full name.** Article XX. Charging an Attempt. § 2750. Attempt — Some act must be alleged. — An allegation of an attempt to commit an offense is not sufficient without alleging some physical act done by the accused towards its accomplishment, under the statute that "whoever attempts to commit any offense and does any act towards it, but fails," is guilty of an attempt.*^ •^Com. V. Wise, 110 Mass. 181, 2 Wall, 39 Mo. 532; S. v. Seely, 30 Green C. R. 264. Ark. 162; S. v. Skinner, 76 towa 147, »^ S. V. Hallda, 28 W. Va. 499, 6 40 N. W. 144. Am. C. R. 408; Shay v. P., 22 N. Y. «= Thompson v. P., 96 111. 161; Cox 317; King v. Stevens, 5 Bast 244; v. P., 82 111. 191; Davis v. S., 87 Ala. 2 Hale P. C. 193; Sample v. S., 104 10, 6 So. 266; S. v. Brown, 95 N. C. Ind. 289, 6 Am. C. R. 417, 4 N. B. 40; 685; S. v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; S. V. Lucas, 147 Mo. 70, 47 S. W. Hicks v. Com., 86 Va. 223, 9 S. B. 1067. 1024; S. v. Prazier, 53 Kan. 87, 36 ''P. V. St. Clair, 56 Cal. 406. See Pac. 58; S. v. Frazier, 54 Kan. 719, Scroggins v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 117, 35 39 Pac. 819; 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. S. W. 968. ed.), § 2; White v. P., 179 111. 358, "^Vandermark v. P., 47 111. 124; 53 N. B. 570. Willis V. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 401; S. v. 716 hughes' criminal law. § 2751 § 2751. "Attempt" implies intent. — "It seems impossible to doubt that the only distinction between an intent and an attempt to do a thing is that the former implies purpose only, while the latter implies both the purpose and an actual effort to carry that purpose into exe- cution."** Article XXI. Exhibits: Foreign Language. § 2752. Foreign language. — A document in a foreign language must be set out in the original and then the translation set out in the English language.*' Article XXII. Caption; Conclusion. § 2753. "In name of people." — "All indictments shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the people of the state of Illinois," is the constitutional form given and which must be fol- lowed, otherwise the indictment will be bad.** § 2754. Caption of indictment. — The commencement or caption of an indictment can not be considered as the count or any portion thereof. It is but the caption. The caption stands for each count, and a mistake in the time therein stated does not vitiate the indict- ment.*® § 2755. Concluding contra statute. — An indictment concluding "contrary to the form of the statute" clearly indicates a prosecution under a statute, and not the common law, and if there be no statute to cover the facts in the indictment, it should on motion be quashed.*' An indictment which does not conclude "against the peace and dig- nity of the state" is a nullity. The constitution requires that such shall be the conclusion of every indictment.'^ The conclusion of "1 Bish. Cr. L., § 728; Scott v. »« Whitesides v. P., Breese (111.) 21. P., 141 111. 205, 30 N. E. 329; Gray v. »° Duncan v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 457; S., 63 Ala. 73. See Atkinson v. S., George v. P., 167 111. 417, 47 N. E. 34 Tex. Cr. 424^ 30 S. W. 1064; John- 741; 1 Blsh. Cr. Proc, § 661; 1 son V. S., 14 Ga. 55; Hart v. S., 38 Chitty Cr. L. 326. Tex. 382; Jackson v. S., 91 Ala. 55, "Town of Paris v. P., 27 111. 75. 8 So. 773; Patrick v. P., 132 111. 534, Contra, Heard Cr. PI. 258. Compare 24 N. B. 619; Graham v. P., 181 111. S. v. McDonald, 73 N. C. 346, 1 Am. 488, 55 N. E. 179. C. R. 378. "Whar. Cr. PI. & Pr. (8th ed.), "Rice v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 215, § 181. See "Forgery." 1 Green C. R. 369. See Lemons v. § 2756 INDICTMENTS. 717 an indictment summing up the offense unnecessarily may be regarded as surplusage."'' Article XXIII. Quashing Indictments. § 2756. Motion to quash indictment. — A general motion to quash an indictment wiU be overruled if any of the counts be good. One good count will sustain an indictment.** Where an indictment for- felony contains several counts substantially identical, any one of which is sufficient to receive the evidence, it is error to refuse to quash the unnecessary counts.®* § 2757. Motion to quash, supported by affidavit. — ^Where an affi- davit in support of a motion to quash an indictment alleges the facts on information and belief, to show the irregularity of the finding of the indictment, and if the facts so alleged be within the knowledge of the state's attorney, and set out in the affidavit to be within his knowl- edge, it may be sufficient to call upon him to dispute the correctness of the facts so set forth in the moving affidavit."' § 2758. Motion to quash — On evidence of grand juror. — The tes- timony of grand jurors is not admissible to impeach their acts in finding an indictment, nor to show that twelve of their number did not concur in the finding."" § 2759. Defendant before grand jury. — Compelling the defendant to testify in his own case before the grand jury is violative of his con- stitutional right, and is grounds to quash the indictment."' S., 4 W. Va. 755, 1 Green C. R. 666; Greer v. S., 50 Ind. 267, 19 Am. R. S. V. Mason, 54 S. C. 240, 32 S. E. 709; McGuire v. S., 50 Ind. 284; 357; Hardin v. S., 106 Ga. 384, 32 Rasch v. S., 89 Md. 755, 43 Atl. 931. S. E. 365; S. v. Wade, 147 Mo. 73, 47 »*West v. P., 137 111. 201, 27 N. B. S. W. 1070; S. V. McKettrick, 14 S. 34, 34 N. E..254. C. 346. Contra, Snodgrass v. S., 13 ""P. v. Briggs, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Ind. 292; S. v. Burt, 25 Vt 373; S. 17, 2 Cr. L. Mag. 428. See Bonardo V. Berry, 9 N. J. L. 374. v. P., 182 111. 422, 55 N. E. 519. ■"Hawley V. Com., 78 Va. 847, 850; ■» S. v. Hamilton, 13 Nev. 386, 1 Henderson v. P., 117 111. 268, 7 N. B. Cr. L. Mag. 414; Spigener v. S., 62 677. See Palmer v. P., 138 111. 363, Ala. 383, 2 Cr. L. Mag. 123; S. v. 28 N. E. 130. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 9 Am. C. R. "'Thomas v. P., 113 111. 535; 12, 22 S. W. 463; Gilmore v. P., 87 Hutchison v. Com., 82 Pa. St. 472, 2 111. App. 128. Contra, P. v. Shat- Am. C. R. 371; Holliday v. P., 4 tuck, 6 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 33, 1 Gilm. (111.) Ill; Townsend v. P., Cr. L. Mag. 274; Ex parte Schmidt, 3 Scam. (111.) 329; S. v. Burke, 54 71 Cal. 212, 12 Pac. 55, 7 Am. C. R. N. H. 92, 2 Green C. R. 368; Hazen 224. V. Com., 11 Harris (Pa.) 355; Com. "Boone v. P., 148 111. 440, 36 N. E. v. McKisson, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 420; 99; S. v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 296; 718 hughes' criminal law. § 2760 § 2760. Indicting without evidence. — An indictment should be quashed where the same was found upon the evidence of witnesses not sworn, or upon the testimony of incompetent witnesses."* An indict- ment found without the hearing of any testimony or upon inadequate or illegal evidence may be quashed on motion ; and the defendant may show by the state's attorney that no witnesses were brought before the grand jury to give testimony in reference to the subject-matter of the indictment."* When some of the evidence is competent and some in- competent, upon which an indictment was found, the indictment will not be quashed.^"" Aeticle XXIV. Amending Indictments. § 2761. Amendments of indictments. — By the common law indict- ments can not be amended. Mr. Blackstone says: "And we may take notice that none of the statutes of jeofails for amendments of error extend to indictments or proceedings in criminal cases."^ The state's attorney has no authority to amend an indictment. The stat- utes allowing amendments do not apply to criminal cases. The de- fendant should be tried upon the indictment as it was presented by the grand jury.^ But in some states amendments to indictments as to matters of form are allowed by statute.' § 2762. New indictment on same evidence. — A defective indict- ment may be dismissed while pending on demurrer or motion to quash, and the case may be resubmitted to the same grand jury for the re- turn of a second indictment on the same evidence.* But the witnesses must be recalled and examined before the grand jury." U. S. v. Bdgerton, 80 Fed. 374; Un- Knapp, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 496. See derhill Cr. Ev., § 27. See § 2689. Wadley v. Com., 98 Va. 803, 35 S. E. "S. V. Ivey, 100 N. C. 539, 5 S. E. 452; Carl v. S., 125 Ala. 89, 28 So. 407, 7 Am. C. R. 247; S. v. Logan, 505. See "Grand Jury" generally. 1 Nev. 509, 516; Sparrenberger v. ' 4 Bl. Com. 376. S., 53 Ala. 481; Royce v. Ter., 5 Okl. = Patrick v. P., 132 111. 533, 24 N. 61, 47 Pac. 1083; U. S. v. Farrlngton, E. 619. 5 Fed. 343. " S. v. McCarty, 17 R. I. 370, 22 "S. v. Grady, 12 Mo. App. 361, 7 Atl. 282; S. v. Minford, 64 N. J. L. Cr. L. Mag. 396; P. v. Moore, 65 518, 45 Atl. 817. How. Pr. (N. Y.) 177. See In re * S. v. Peterson, 61 Minn. 73, 63 Gardiner, 64 N. Y. Supp. 760, 31 N. W. 171; 10 Am. C. R. 426; Creek Misc. 364; S. v. Lanier, 90 N. C. 714, v. S„ 24 Ind. 151; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, 6 Cr. L. Mag. 913; S. v. Froiseth, 16 § 870; Com. v. Clemmer, 190 Pa. Minn. 296, 4 Cr. L. Mag. 184; S. v. St 202, 42 Atl. 675. See Smith v. Grady, 84 Mo. 224, 9 Am. C. R. 13; S., 40 Fla. 203, 27 So. 868. Sparrenberger v. S., 53 Ala. 481, 2 " S. v. Ivey, 100 N. C. 539, 5 S. E. Am. C. R. 473. 407, 7 Am. C. R. 248; Underbill Cr. '™S. v. Fassett, 16 Conn. 458, 471; Ev., § 26. Hope V. P., 83 N. Y. 418; Com. v. § 2763 INDICTMENTS. 719 § 2763. Statute of limitations — ^When begins. — Where an indict- ment has been procured (and it seems whether good or bad), the statute of limitations will not begin to run until such indictment is in some manner set aside by a nolle pros., by quashing or by being re- versed by a court of review.* Aeticle XXV. Special Pleas. § 2764. Special plea — General issue. — Autre fois convict and acquit and all pleas to the merits, by statutory provision of Illinois, may be shown under the general issue of "not guilty."^ § 2765. Special pleas, autre fois convict. — The plea of autre fois convict and acquit must set out the record of the former conviction or acquittal, including the caption and indictment, and allege that the two offenses are the same and that the defendant in the former is the same person who is the defendant in the latter.* § 2766. Waiving defects by pleading. — ^By pleading generally to the indictment the defendant admits its genuineness and waives all matters that should have been pleaded in abatement.® Article XXVI. Demdekek to Indictments. § 2767. Demurrer to indictment. — Under the common law, "a de- murrer is incident to criminal cases, as well as civil, when the fact alleged is allowed to be true, but the prisoner joins issue upon some point of law in the indictment, by which he insists that the fact, as stated, is no felony, treason or whatever the crime is alleged to be."^" "Some have held that if, on demurrer, the point of law be adjudged against the prisoner, he shall have judgment and execution, as if con- victed by verdict. But this is denied by others, who hold that in such case he shall be directed and received to plead the general issue, not guilty, after a delnurrer determined against him."^^ "Swalley V. P., 116 111. 249, 4 N. B. « Wilson v. S., 45 Tex. 77; 1 Bish. 379; Div. IV, Sec. 6, 111. Crim. Code. Cr. Proc, §§ 814-816. 'Hanklns v. P^ 106 111. 636; Gan- »S. v. Justus, 11 Or. 178, 8 Pac. non V. P., 127 111. 522, 21 N. E. 525; 337, 6 Am. C. R. 513; P. v. Robinson, Clem V. S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. R. 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 235, 309. 369, 2 Green C. R. 694. See S. v. " 4 Bl. Com. 334. Ward, 49 Conn. 429; P. v. Durrin, 2 "4 Bl. Com. 334. See § 2880. N. Y. Cr. 328. 720 hughes' criminal law. § 2768 § 2768. Demurrer, seldom used. — "Demurrers to indictments are seldom used, since the same advantages may be taken upon a plea of not guilty, or afterwards in arrest of judgment."^^ Article XXVII. Pleas in Abatement. § 2769. Plea in abatement. — The defect of duplicity can be taken advantage of by general demurrer to a plea in abatement.^' § 2770. Plea in abatement, defective. — A plea that "the grand jury that found said indictment was not legally chosen and impaneled" was held bad on demurrer. The plea should have pointed out wherein the grand jury were not legally chosen and impaneled.^* § 2771. Plea in abatement, certainty required. — The certainty re- quired of pleas in abatement is extreme ; they must be certain "to a certain intent in every particular."^'' Article XXVIII. Informations, Complaints. § 2772. Informations, same as indictments. — Informations, the same as indictments, must be carried on in the name of the people, and conclude, against the peace and dignity of the same.^° § 2773. Informations, two kinds. — "Informations are of two sorts : First, those which are partly at the suit of the king, and partly at that of the subject, and, secondly, such as are only in the name of the king. The former are usually brought upon penal statutes, which inflict a penalty upon conviction of the offender, one part to the use of the king and another to the use of the informer, and are a sort of qui tarn actions."^' "=4 Bl. Com. 334. Vt. 84, 7 Atl. 129, 7 Am. C. R. 203; "S. V. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 7 Atl. 129, Miller v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 208; S. v. Y Am. C. R. 204. Ward, 64 Me. 545; Ward v. S., 48 "Priest V. S., 10 Neb. 393, 6 N. W. Ind. 289; Tervin v. S., 37 Fla. 396, 468; S. V. Duggan, 15 R. I. 412, 6 Atl. 20 So. 551; S. v. Skinner, 34 Kan. 597, 7 Am. C. R. 223; Brennan v. P., 256, 8 Pac. 420, 6 Am. C. R. 313; 15 111. 511; Dyer v. S., 11 Lea Reeves v. S., 29 Fla. 527, 10 So. 901. (Tenn.) 509; S. v. Skinner, 34 Kan. See S. v. Bryant, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 256, 6 Am. C. R. 313, 8 Pac. 420; 527. Blair v. S., 5 Ohio C. C. 496. "Gould v. P., 89 111. 217: Parris >» S. V. Duggan, 15 R. I. 412, 6 Atl. v. P., 76 111. 277. 597, 7 Am. C. R. 223; S. v. Emery, 59 " 4 Bl. Com. 308. 2774 INDICTMENTS. 721 §2774. Informations for misdemeanors.— "lufdnhations of every ind are confined by the constitutional law to mere misdemeanors nly."" Article XXIX. Same Accueact as Indictments.. §2775. Informations require same accuracy ad indictments. — ^In- ormations filed in the county court, under the statntej require thte ame accuracy in pleadings as indictments.** Article XXX. Informations AMENDlBlifi. §2776. Informations may be amended by common law. — ^tTndtir he common law, informations and complaints may be amended on ipplication by the public officer by whom presented. In Illinois the lommon law in this respect is repealed.^" § 2777. Information by states attorney. — An information filed' by he state's attorney is to be treated as the information of that offifeef,. hough sworn to by the prosecuting witness. The affidavit attached s no part of the information.''* §2778. Information for murder, defective. — The information iharges that the accused, on a day and year and at a place named, 'one Mary A. Bowers, feloniously, willfully and wickedly .di LObg v. P., 135 111. 440, 25 N. Ef. 14 U. S. 417, 5 S. Ct. 935. 851; Gallagher v. P., 120 111; 182, 11 "Gould V. P., 89 111. 217. N. E. 335. » Long v. P., 135 111. 441, 25 N. El. " P. v. Oiinstjraa, 30' Jlich. 431; 1 !51; Truitt v. P., 88 111. 518; S. v. Am. C; R. 307-8; lubbard, 71 Vt. 405, 45 Ail. 751; 1 "City of FaWbaMt v. Wilsofr, 34 Hsh. Or. Proc. (2d ed.), § 1215; S. Minn. 254, 6 Ami C. R. 546, 25 N. W '. Stebblns, 29 Conn. 463. See § 3385. 449. HUOHES' C. L. — 46 722 hughes' criminal law. § 2780 § 2780. Complaint, sufficiency. — The same technical precision is not required in prosecutions on complaint in justice courts as is re- quired in courts of record ; still, there should be enough to show with reasonable certainty that an offense is charged under the law, of which a justice of the peace has jurisdiction.^* § 2781. Affidavit on "belief and information." — Informations must be based on affidavits which show probable cause arising from the facts within the knowledge of the parties making them; mere belief is not sufficient.^' A complaint charging an offense upon mere in- formation and belief — that is, that the "affiant has good reason to be- lieve and does believe" that the offense was committed — ^though other- wise technically correct, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the justice or court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person.^* § 2782. Complaint, when must be made. — When an arrest is made without a warrant, though authorized by law, a complaint in writing must be made, stating the offense for which the party was arrested, before the justice or court will have jurisdiction to try or inquire into the charge. It is the filing of a proper complaint that gives the court jurisdiction; and without the making of such complaint there is no cause to be disposed of by the court.^^ § 2783. Indorsing witnesses. — If the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony an indictment is found be not indorsed on the indict- ment, it is defective and may be quashed.^* Aeticle XXXI. Electioij of Counts § 2784. Election of counts, when required. — The right of demand- ing an election and the limitation of the prosecution to one offense is confined to charges alleged in the indictment, which are actually dis- "Truitt V. P., 88 111. 521; Moore ="P. v. Hefifron, 53 Mich. 529, 19 Cr. L. (2d ed.), § 44. The same N. "W. 170; Shaw v. Ashford, 110 rules of criminal pleading applied Mich. 534, 68 N. W. 281; Ex parte to indictments govern as to infor- Spears, 88 Cal. 642, 26 Pac. 608; mations and complaints. See "In- XJ. S. v. Collins, 79 Fed. 65 ; Mulkins dictments." v. U. S. (Old.), 61 Pac. 925. =»U. S. V. Polite, 35 Fed. 59; John- "Bigham v. S., 59 Miss. 530; Tracy son V. U. S., 85 Fed. 187; U. S. v. v. Williams, 4 Conn. 107; Prell v. Tureaud, 20 Fed. 621; S. v. Brooks, McDonald, 7 Kan. 426, 450. 33 Kan. 708, 7 Pac. 591, 6 Am. C. R. "" See "Grand Jury." 303. Contra, S. v. Cronin, 20 Wash. 512, 56 Pac. 26. I 2785 INDICTMENTS. 723 tinet from each other, and do not form parts of one and the same transaction.^' But the rule requiring an election of counts to some one ofEense does not apply to misdemeanors joined in the same indict- ment.^°* An indictment will not be quashed, nor will the prosecutor be put to his election as to which count he will proceed under, when the court may be doubtful if the intention be not to charge the same as cognate offenses growing out of the same transaction, but will post- pone action until it is developed by the evidence that it is sought to convict of two or more offenses growing out of separate and different transactions, before compelling the state to elect on which count the prosecution will proceed.^" Where the evidence disclosed at least three separate and distinct felonies charged as having been committed by the defendants, then in that case the court erred in not compelling the prosecution to elect on which count it would ask a convietion.^^ § 2785. Abandonment of counts by election. — Where an election between two or more counts is made, this is an abandonment of all the other counts.^^ Article XXXII. ISTumbering Counts; Eshibits. §2786, Numbering counts— Indorsing indictment. — In making reference to the several different counts in an indictment, as the first count, second count, etc., each count shall be numbered in the order in which it appears without reference to numerals placed before the counts.*' Indorsing an indictment by a wrong description will not invalidate it, as robbery instead of larceny.'* § 2787. Attaching exhibits, improper. — The practice of attaching a copy of an instrument as an exhibit, instead of incorporating it into '^Goodhue v. P., 94 111. 51; U. S. V. 178 111. 323, 52 N. E. 903. See Nye, 4 Fed. 888; S. v. Moore, 2 § 2883. Pen. (Del.) 299, 46 Atl. 669. ''West v. P., 137 111. 204, 27 N. E. ^aMcArthur v. S. (^Teb.), 83 N. 34, 34 N. B. 254; Goodhue v. P., 94 W. 196; Newsom v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 111. 37; Lyon v. P., 68 111. 275; An- S. W. 670. See S. v. Peldman, 80 drews v. P., 117 111. 200, 7 N. B. 265; Minn. 314, 83 N. W. 182. Bennett v. P., 96 111. 605; 1 Blsh. Cr. "•West V. P., 137 111. 199, 27 N. E. Proc. (3d ed.), § 457. 34, 34 N. B. 254; McGregg v. S., 4 ^S. v. Smalley, 50 Vt. 736. Blackf. (Ind.) 101; Mayo v. S., 30 »= Teerney v. P., 81 111. 412. Ala. 32; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 457; '•Collins v. P., 39 111. 238; Com. Glover v. S.. 109 Ind. 391, 10 N. B. v. Phipps (Pa.), 4 Cr. Law Mag. 282, 7 Am. C. R. 118; Schintz v. P., 549. 724 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2787 the body of the indictment, is a very loose and dangerous practice, and certainly not to be encouraged, and ought not to obtain in criminal pleading.*" "S. V. Williams, 32 Minn. 537, 5 Am. C. R, 243, 21 N. W. 746. CHAPTER LXXVII. CONTINUANCE. Art. I. Affidavit for Continuance, II. Continuance Discretionary, III. Sufficiency of Application, IV. Diligence Required, .... V. Certain Averments Essential, VI. Continuance for Preparation, VII. Several Continuances, When, VIII. Admitting Facts; Statute, . IX. Non-resident Witnesses, . . X. Counter Affidavits, .... XI. Counsel Abandoning Case, XII. Cumulative and Character Evidence, XIII. Affidavit Sufficient, §§ §§ §§ §§ 2788 2789 3790-2791 2792-2794 2795-2798 2799-2800 2801-2802 2803-2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 Article I. Apeidavit for Continuance. § 2788. Facts to be taken as true. — As a rule, the statements of fact contained in an affidavit for continuance must for the purposes of the motion be taken as true ; but the court may consider inconsistent statements.^ An application for a continuance of a cause must be supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for a continuance.^ Article II. Continuance Dischetionaet. § 2789. Continuance not matter of right. — The defendant in a criminal cause is not entitled to a continuance as a matter of right. ' It • Dacey v. P., 116 111. 565, 6 Am. = S. v. Perique, 42 La. 403, 7 So. C. R. 461, 6 N. E. 165; Baker v. 599; P. v. Symonds, 22 Cal. 348; Com., 10 Ky. L. 746, 10 S. W. 386; Mitchell v. S., 92 Tenn. 668, 23 S. S. V. Abshlre, 47 La. 542, 17 So. 141, W. 68; P. v. Ward, 105 Cal. 335, 38 10 Am. C. R. 457; Cutler v. S., 42 Pac. 945. Ind. 244; Welch v. Com., 90 Va. 318, 18 S. B. 273. (725) 726 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. §279a is discretionary with the court, and a refusal can not ordinarily be as- signed for error.^ Article III. Sufficiency of Application. ■• § 2790. Affidavit must contain facts. — An affidavit should not be too general in stating what can be proven by the absent witnesses, but should set out the facts, that the court can see that the evidence will be material to the issues.* And the affidavit must also state that such facts are true.** An affidavit for a continuance must not only state the facts expected to be shown by the absent witness, but must also show wherein or how the facts are material to the issues.^ § 2791. Facts essential to continuance. — The essential requisites of an affidavit for continuance are : First, the name and residence of the witness; that he is really material and shown to the court by the affidavit to be so. Second, that the party who applies has been guilty of no neglect, or, in other words, shows the exercise of proper diligence. Third, that the witness can be had at the next term, to which it is sought to have the trial of the cause deferred." 'Holmes v. P., 5 Gilm. (111.) 478; Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 368; S. V. Burns, 148 Mo. 167, 49 S. W. 1005; S. V. Reid, 20 Iowa 413; Com. v. Brothers, 158 Mass. 200, 33 N. B. 386; Ballard v. P., 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; S. v. Howe, 27 Or. 138, 44 Pae. 672; S. v. Green, 43 La. 402, 9 So. 42; Walker v. S., 91 Ala. 76, 9 So. 87; Clark v. S., 41 Neb. 370, 9 Am. C. R. 119, 59 N. W. 785: S. v. Pankey, 104 N. C. 840, 10 S. B. 315; P. v. Burwell, 106 Mich. 27, 63 N. W. 986; Walker v. S., 136 Ind. 663, 36 N. E. 356; Morris v. S., 104 Ind. 457, 4 N. E. 148; S. v. Dettmer, 124 Mo. 426, 27 S. W. 1117; S. v. Rigsby, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 554; Long v. S., 38 Ga. 491; Holt v. S., 11 Ohio St. 691; S. v. Rodrigues, 45 La. 1040, 13 So. 802; S. V. Abshire, 47 La. 542, 17 So. 141. Contra, Jenks v. S., 39 Ind. 1; P. V. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458. *Bubanks v. P., 41 111. 488; Moody V. P., 20 111. 318; Williams v. S., 10 Tex. App. 114; S. v. McCoy, 29 La. 593; Ransbottom v. S., 144 Ind. 250, 43 N. E. 218; S. v. Strattman, 100 Mo. 540, 13 S. W. 814; Stevens T. S., 93 Ga. 307, 20 S. E. 331; Hoover v. S., 48 Neb. 184, 66 N. W. 1117; S. v. Wilson, 9 Wash. 218, 37 Pac. 424; HoUoway v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 24 S. W. 649. ^a Moody V. P., 20 111. 316; P. v. Burwell, 106 Mich. 27, 63 N. W. 986; S. V. Bassenger, 39 La. 918, 3 So. 55; White v. S., 86 Ala. 69, -5 So. 674; Boyd v. S., 33 Fla. 316, 14 So. 836. = Ter. V. Barth (Ariz.), 15 Pac. 673; S. V. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300, 4 S. W. 931; Shirwln v. P., 69 111. 55; S. v. Bennett, 52 Iowa 724, 2 N. W. 1103; S. v. Smith, 56 S. C. 378, 34 S. E. 657. See S. v. Nathaniel, 52 La. 558, 26 So. 1008; Pettit v. S., 135 Ind. 393, 34 N. B. 1118; P. v. Anderson, 53 Mich. 60, 18 N. W. 561; North v. P., 139 111. 81, 28 N. E. 966; Little v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 654, 47 S. W. 984'; S. v. Rice, 149 Mo. 461, 51 S. W. 78. "Shirwin v. P., 69 111. 55, 1 Am. C. R. 650; S. v. Primeaux, 39 La. 673, 2 So. 423; Moody v. P., 20 111. 315; Beavers v. S., 58 Ind. 530; Whar. Cr. PI. & Pr., § 591; Steele V. P., 45 111. 152. See Anderson v. S., 72 Ga. 98, 5 Am. C. R. 443. i 2792 CONTINUANCE. 727 Akticle IV. Diligence Eequieed. § 2792. Diligence in securing attendance.— In an application for 1 continuance the affidavit must show that the defendant and his coun- sel have been diligent in attempting to secure the attendance of the ivitnesses, and should show in what the diligence consisted, whether DV procuring subpena or otherwise.'^ The affidavit for a continuance must show diligence in procuring the attendance of the witnesses by- proper process of court, usually a subpena, delivered to the proper jfficer or other competent person, in due time, for service before the 3ase is called for trial ; and the officer or person should be informed where the witnesses reside or can be found.* §2793. Diligence not shown. — An affidavit is defective in not showing diligence and in not showing that the accused expects to pro- cure the attendance of the absent witness by some future term, and in Qot stating where the witnesses resided or could be f ound.^ § 2794. Witness leaving court. — When the defendant is surprised by the unauthorized withdrawal of his witnesses after the trial has commenced, the practice is to apply for a continuance or postpone- ment." Akticle V. Certain Averments Essential. - § 2795. Application uncertain. — If the showing made in an appli- cation for the continuance is equivocal or uncertain, the intendment must be taken against it.^^ 'P. v. Thompson, 4 Cal. 238; P. v. Clain, 49 Kan. 730, 31 Pac. 790; P. Winters, 125 Cal. 325, 57 Pac. 1067; v. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal. 171, 31 Pac. Conrad v. S., 144 Ind. 290, 43 N. E. 933; S. v. Hutchinson, 14 Wash. 580, 221; Barkman v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 52 S. 45 Pac. 156; Hudson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), W. 73; Trask v. P., 151 111. 523, 38 36 S. W. 452; Pettit v. S., 135 Ind. N. E. 248; S. v. Wilson, 85 Mo. 134; 393, 34 N. E. 1118; S. v. Thompson, S. V. Bassenger, 39 La. 918, 3 So. 132 Mo. 301, 34 S. W. 31; Childers 55; Weaver v. S., 154 Ind. 1, 55 N. v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 392, 35 S. W. 654; E. 858; Tatum v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. P. v. Lampson, 70 Cal. 204. 11 Pac. W. 40. 593. 'Abott's ICr. Brief, § 183, citing >° Price v. P., 131 111. 232, 23 N. S. V. Burns, 54 Mo. 274; Henderson E. 639; Cotton v. S., 4 Tex. 260; V. S., 22 Tex. 593. Joseph v. Com., 8 Ky. L. 53, 1 S. "Richardson v. P., 31 111. 171. See W. 4. also Jamison v. P., 145 111. 357, 34 "Dacey v. P., 116 111. 565, 6 N. N. E. 486; Dacey v. P., 116 111. 555, E. 165; S. v. Eisenmeyer, 94 111. 101; B N. E. 165; Bishop v. S. (Tex. Cr.), Steele v. P., 45 111. 156; Haw v. S., 35 S. W. 170; S. v. McCoy, 111 Mo. 33 Tex. Cr. 24, 24 S. W. 293; Thomp- 517, 20 S. W. 240; S. v. Lewis, 56 son v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 217, 26 S. W. Kan. 374, 43 Pac. 265; S. v. Brooks, 198. 1 Wash. 328, 30 Pac. 147; S. v. Mc- 728 hughes' criminal law. § 2796 § 2796. Pacts to be alleged as true. — If it is not stated in the affidavit that the facts expected to be proved by the absent witness are true, or that' he was actually present at the time and an observer of the transaction, the application is not snfficient.^^ § 2797. Wo other witness than absent one. — The affidavit for con- tinuance should state that the defendant can not prove the facts on which he relies for continuance by any other witnesses.^^ But where the affidavit for continuance shows there will be a conflict in the evi- dence on material matters, expected to be proved by the absent wit- ness, then the affidavit is not fatally defective in failing to allege that the defense has or knows of no other witness by whom he can prove such facts.^* § 2798. Procuring witness to be absent — Not for delay. — The affi- davit should negative the fact that the absent witness was absent by the procurement of defendant.^" And the affidavit for a continuance shoujLd state the fact that the application is not made for delay .^' Article VI. Continuance foe Peepaeation. § 2799. Time to prepare for trial. — A defendant is entitled, under the law, to a reasonable time and full opportunity to prepare for his trial, and that right should be guaranteed him.^' The refusal of re- quest of counsel for time to prepare and file defendant's affidavit, in support of his motion for a continuance, is reversible error; it is in effect refusing to entertain the motion.^* "Wllhelm V. P., 72 111. 468. B. 404; P. v. Hlldebrandt, 38 N. Y. "Dunn V. P., 109 111. 642, 4 Am. Supp. 958, 16 Misc. 195; S. v. Bryant, C. E. 52; Wall v. S., 18 Tex. 682; 93 Mo. 273, 6 S. W. 102; Blackmore Hyde v. Ter., 8 Okl. 69, 56 Pac. 851; v. S. (Ark.), 8 S. W. 940. S. v. Slmms, 68 Mo. 305; Smith v. "Polite v. S., 78 Ga. 347; S. v. S., 58 Miss. 868; P. v. Garns, 2 Utah Heinze, 45 Mo. App. 403; Parmer v. Ter. 260; S. v. Marshall, 19 Nev. 240, S., 95 Ga. 498, 20 S. E. 494. S Pac. 672; Thompson v. Com., 88 "Price v. P., 131 111. 231, 23 N. Va. 45, 13 S. B. 304; S. v. Heinze, 45 B. 639; Conley v. P., 80 111. 237; Mo. App. 403; Anderson v. S., 72 Dacey v. P., 116 111. 562, 6 N. E. 165; Ga. 98; S. v. Brooks, 4 Wash. 328, Steele v. P., 45 111. 153; Hamilton 30 Pac. 147; S. v. Murphy, 9 Wash. v. S., 62 Ark. 543, 36 S. W. 1054; 204, 37 Pac. 420; S. v. Aired, 115 Brooks v. Com., 100 Ky. 194, 18 Ky. Mo. 471, 22 S. W. 363. L. 702, 37 S. W. 1043. "North V. P., 139 111. 98, 28 N. "Price v. P., 131 111. 233, 23 N. E. 966. E. 639. "Crews V. P., 120 111. 317, 11 N. § 2800 CONTINUANCE. 729 § 2800. Application for time to prepare.— Where the affidavits show diligence and good grounds for continuance, because of not suiB- cient time in which counsel may prepare for trial, it is error to refuse a continuance.!'* If counsel desires time to prepare for the trial of a cause, he should move the court for a continuance or postponement; otherwise the assignment of error on the ground of such refusal will be of no avail.^" Aeticle VII. Several Continuances, When. § 2801. Several contimianoes— When allowed. — The witnesses hav- ing secreted themselves to avoid the service of an attachment, the ap- plicant, by his application showing diligence, is entitled to a continu- ance, notwithstanding iive continuances have been granted.^^ A sec- ond or several continuances of a cause will be allowed or denied in the discretion of the court, considering the circumstances upon which the application for a continuance is made.^^ To entitle a party to a sec- ond continuance, on account of absent witnesses, he should have had them recogiiized to appear.^' § 2802. Compulsory process essential. — The defendant, having gone to trial in the absence of a witness whom he had subpenaed, is' guilty of negligence in not having applied to the court for compul- sory process to enforce attendance of the witness, and failing in that, he should have applied to the court for a continuance.''* Article VIII. Admitting Pacts; Statute. § 2803. Admitting facts in affidavit. — The court may permit the prosecution to admit the absolute truth of the facts set out in the affidavit and require the defendant to go to trial.^" If the prosecution "North V. P., 139 111. 98, 28 N. Ky. L. 337, 20 S. W. 221; Withers E. 966. See Dunn v. P., 109 111. 635, v. S., 30 Tex. App. 383, 17 S. W. 4 Am. C. R. 52; S. v. Dakln, 52 Iowa 936. 395, 3 N. W. 411. '' Radford v. Com., 10 Ky. L. 877, "'Williams v. P., 164 111. 482, 45 11 S. W. 12. N. E. 987. '"Spann v. P., 137 111. 544, 27 N. "S. V. Walker, 69 Mo. 274. See B. 688. Johnson V. S., 58 Ga. 491. '"'Van Meter v. P., gO 111. 168; ''P. V. Leyshon, 108 Cal. 440, 41 Whar. Cr. PI. & Pr. (8th ed.), § 595. Pac. 480; Burnett v. S., 87 Ga. 622, See Powers v. S., 80 Ind. 77; Baker 13 S. B. 552; Scott v. S. (Tex.), 25 v. S., 58 Ark. 513, 25 S. W. 603; S. W. 783; Mlxon v. S., 85 Ga. 455, Phlpps v. S., 36 Tex. Or. 216, 36 S. 11 S. E. 874; Walkup v. Com., 14 W. 753. 730 hughes' criminal law. § admits that the absent witnesses mentioned in the application of the defendant for a continuance, if present, would testify to the facts set out in the application, then the court may properly refuse a continu- ance.^* § 2804. Statute on admitting facts. — A statute providing that when an affidavit is made for continuance in behalf of the people, or any defendant in a criminal case, on the grounds of the absence of a material witness, the state's attorney or the defendant shall not be required to admit the absolute truth of the matter set up in the affi- davit, but may admit that such absent witness would testify as alleged in the affidavit, is not unconstitutional.^^ Article IX. Kon-Eesident Witnesses. § 2805. Non-resident witness — ^Promise to attend. — ^When the ab- sent witness is beyond the limits of the state, the party applying for a continuance should state the grounds of his expectation in having such witness present.^* Where application is made for a continuance be- cause of the absence of a material witness who is a non-resident, the affidavit must show that such witness can be procured and will attend the trial at the term to which continued.^" Where a material witness residing out of the state has promised that he will attend the trial, and these facts are shown by affidavit, a continuance should be al- lowed.^" A promise by the non-resident witness, on which the defend- ant in good faith relied, is sufficient.'*^ =«Adkins v. Com., 98 Ky. 539, 17 v. Ah Yute, 53 Cal. 613; Collins v. Ky. L. 1091, 33 S. W. 948; S. v. S., 78 Ga. 87; Faulkner v. Ter., 6 Hartley, 48 Kan. 421, 29 Pac. 701; N. M. 464, 30 Pac. 905; S. v. Aired, S. V. Stickney, 53 Kan. 308, 36 Pac. 115 Mo. 471, 22 S. W. 363; Wilson 714, 42 Am. R. 284; Evans v. S. v. P., 3 Colo. 325; Polin v. S., 14 (Tex. Cr.), 31 S. W. 648; S. v. Neb. 540, 16 N. W. 898; S. v. Harrl- Warden, 94 Mo. 648, 8 S. W. 233. son, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S. E. 982. ^Hoyt v. P., 140 111. 592, 30 N. 18 L. R. A. 224, 9 Am. C. R. 631; E. 315; Hickam v. P., 137 111. 79, S. v. Gray, 19 Nev. 212, 8 Pac. 456. 27 N. E. 88; Keatlng-v. P., 160 111. ^"Perteet v. P., 70 111. 171, 175; 482, 43 N. E. 724. Contra, S. v. Owens v. S., 110 Ga. 292, 34 S. B. Dyke, 96 Mo. 298, 9 S. W. 925. 1015. ''"Dacey v. P., 116 111. 568, 6 Am. »»Corbin v. P., 131 111. 619, 23 N. C. R. 461, 6 N. E. 165; Perteet v. P., E. 613; Perteet v. P., 70 111. 171. 70 111. 175; Eubanks v. P., 41 111. "'P. v. Brown, 46 Cal. 102. See 487; Wilhelm v. P., 72 111. 471; P. White v. Com., 80 Ky. 480. t 2806 CONTINUANCE. 731 I Article X. Counter Affidavits. § 2806. Counter affidavits improper. — There is no authority of law 'or filing counter affidavits on a motion for a continuance, and it is iiror to permit the prosecution to do so.*^ Article XI. Counsel Abandoning Case. § 2807. Counsel abandoning case, or absent. — If counsel abandons iefendant's case the' day before the same is set for trial, taking the iefendant by surprise, it is error to refuse a continuance if the de- fendant caused subpena to issue for his witnesses at once, but could lot find them.'^ The absence of the attorney having charge, and who lad always been consulted in the preparation of the cause, and was setter informed about it than the other attorneys on short notice, is dot sufficient reason for a continuance in the absence of anything in the application for such continuance or the showing of any intricacies rf law or fact that any competent attorney could not properly pre- sent the defense, even on short notice.^* Article XII. Cumulative and CHARACTiite Evidence. § 2808. Evidence only cumulative — On character. — A continuance will not be allowed to enable a party to produce evidence that is merely 3mnulative unless there be some necessity shown therefor, such as that there will be a conflict in the evidence.^^ A continuance will not be allowed on account of the absence of witnesses by whom to prove the good character of the defendant or bad character of any person involved.^^ ® Price V. P., 131 111. 231, 23 N. field v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1461, 55 S. E. 639; S. v. Abshire, 47 La. 542, 10 W. 679; S. v. Frost, 103 Tenn. 685, A.in. C. R. 459, 17 So. 141; Hair v. 54 S. W. 986; Newberry v. S., 26 S., 14 Neb. 503, 16 N. W. 829; Hair Fla. 334, 8 So. 445; Marshall v. S., V. 8., 16 Neb. 604, 21 N. W. 464; S. 94 Ga. 589, 20 S. E. 432; Cbarlon V. Dakin, 52 Iowa 395, 3 N. W. 411. v. S., 106 Ga. 400, 32 S. E. 347. See But see Horn v. S., 62 Ga. 362; P. also Van Horn v. S., 5 Wyo. 501, 40 V. Cleveland, 49 Cal. 577; Gandy Pac. 964; Bates v. Com., 13 Ky. L. V. S., 27 Neb. 707, 43 N. W. 747, 44 132, 16 S. W. 528; Daugherty v. S., N. W. 108; Lane v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 Tex. Cr. 173, 26 S. W. 60. 28 S. W. 202. '"Dacey v. P., 116 111. 566, 6 N. E. '^Wray v. P., 78 111. 213; Whar. 165; Wiggins v. S., 84 Ga. 488, 10 S. Cr. PI. & Pr. (8th ed.), § 597. See B. 1089; Varnadoe v. S., 67 Ga. 768; ilso Claxon v. Com., 17 Ky. L. 284, Nelms v. S., 58 Miss. 362. 30 S. W. 998. ^ Steele v. P., 45 111. 157; McNealy "Long v. P., 135 111. 435, 439, 25 v. S., 17 Fla. 198; Johnson v. S., 31 N. B. 851, 11 L. R. A. 48. See Hat- Tex. Cr. 456, 20 S. W. 985; Ballard 732 hughes' ceiminal law. § 2809 Aeticle XIII. Affidavit Sufficient. § 2809. Affidavits sufficient. — In the following eases the facts set out in the affidavits for a continuance are reviewed, and it was held error to refuse a continuance :^^ V. S., 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Parks 34 N. B. 1118; Van Meter v. P., 60 V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 378, 33 S. W. 872; 111. 170; Corbin v. P., 131 111. 615, 23 S. V. Hllsabeck, 132 Mo. 348, 34 S. N. E. 613; Conley v. P., 80 111. 237, W. 38. 2 Am. C. R. 445; Murphy v. Com., 92 " Sutton V. P., 119 111. 251, 10 N. Ky. 485, 13 Ky. L. 695, 18 S. W. 163. E. 376; Richards v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. Not error: Adams v. P., 109 111. 444, 277, 30 S. W. 229; Austlne v. P., 110 4 Am. C. R. 351; Anderson v. S., 111. 250; PetUt v. S., 135 Ind. 393, 72 Ga. 98, 5 Am. C. R. 443. CHAPTER LXXVIII. CHANGE OP VENUE. 'Art. I. Counter Affidavits, § 2810 II. Eeputable Persons, § 2811 III. Verification of Petition, § 2813 IV. Prejudice of Judge, §§ 2813-2814 V. Change Discretionary, §§ 2815-2816 VI. Prejudice of Inhabitants, § 2817 VII. Change, Where, § 2818 VIII. Change by Consent, §§ 2819-2820 IX. When Several Defendants, ....§§ 2821-2822 X. Certifying the Cause, §§ 2823-3824 XI. Same in Misdemeanor as Felony, . . § 2825 XII. Civil and Criminal Case, Alike, . . . §§ 2826 XIII. Plea Eequired First, § 2827 XIV. Second Change, §§ 2838-2829 Article I. Counter Aefipavits. § 2810. Counter affidavits improper. — ^An application for a change of venue because of the prejudice of the judge of the court can not be contradicted by counter affidavits.^ Article II. Eeputable Persons. § 2811. Proof as to reputable persons. — Where the statute requires that the affidavits of two reputable persons shall accompany the peti- tion for a change of venue, the persons making the affidavits may state in their affidavits that they are persons of repute. This will be suffix cient proof of that fact, and is conclusive.* If the affidavit support- 'Cantwell v. P., 138 111. 602, 28 'Hanna v. P., 86 111. 243; Cant- N. E. 964. well v. P., 138 111. 604, 28 N. E. 964. (733) 734 hughes' criminal law. § 2812 ing the petition for a change of venue, showing the affiants to be "reputable or credible" citizens, fails to show they are residents of the county where the cause is pending for trial, it is defective.^ Article III. Verificatioit of Petition. § 2812. Petition to be verified. — The petition for a change of venue must be signed and sworn to by the defendant, and not by an- other person for him.* Article IV. Prejudice of Judge. § 2813. Prejudice of judge. — When the petition shows prejudice of the judge, and it is in due form, it is mandatory to grant the change. The matter is ex parte and mandatory — ^there is no discretion.^ The defendant stating in his affidavit that he did not have full knowledge of the prejudice of the judge until the day he made his application for a change of venue rendered it too indefinite.® § 2814. Kefusal of affidavits.— If the defendant be unable to get affidavits from residents of the county he may state the facts and reasons given for refusal, and to whom he applied.'' Article V. Change Discretionary. § 2815. When granting change is discretionary. — Where a large number of affidavits have been filed in support of a motion for a change of venue, detailing facts of an attempted mob and prejudicial newspaper statements, but contradicted in most material matters by counter affidavits, it has been frequently held not to be error to deny such application.* Where the defendant shows prejudice of the in- ' S. V. Callaway, 154 Mo. 91, 55 S. ' Simmerman v. S., 16 Neb. 615, 4 W. 444. Am. C. R. 91, 21 N. W. 387. See S. ' McCauley v. P., 88 111. 579. A v. Turlington, 102 Mo. 642, 15 S. W. statute permitting the prosecution 141; Blanks v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 1031, to take a change of venue is valid: 48 S. W. 161. Smith V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1470, 55 S. 'Jamison v. P., 145 111. 365, 34 N. W. 718. E. 486; Hickam v. P., 137 111. 77, 27 "Cantwell v. P., 138 111. 602, 28 N. N. B. 88; Gitchell v. P., 146 111. 178, E. 964; Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. 33 N. B. 757, 37 Am. R. 147; Power Tolman, 80 111. 107; Barrows v. P., v. P., 17 Colo. 178, 28 Pac. 1121; 11 111. 121; Perteet v. P., 65 111. 230; Parker v. Ter. (Ariz., 1898), 52 Pac. Freleigh v. S., 8 Mo. 606; RafCerty 361; Smith v. S., 145 Ind. 176, 42 V. P., 72 111. 37. N. E. 1019; S. v. Clevenger, 156 Mo. "McCann v. P., 88 111. 105. 190, 56 S. W. 1078; S. v. White, 98 § 2816 CHANGE OF VENUE. 735 habitants and the law permits the people to file counter affidavits, it then becomes discretionary with the court in granting or refusing the change.' § 2816. When not discretionary, but a right. — When the affidavit states all that is required by the law, as reasons for a change of venue, the accused is entitled to a change as a matter of right; but where the court is authorized to exercise a discretion a refusal can not be assigned as error.^" If the accused, by his application for a change of venue, brings himself within the statute, and no counter evidence be offered, he is entitled to the change, even where the court is au- thorized to exercise a discretion.^^ Article VI. Prejudice of Inhabitants. § 2817. Prejudice of inhabitants. — Opinions and facts were given by a number of creditable witnesses that the defendant could not have a fair trial in the county where the ofEense was committed, and the witnesses for the people merely expressed a contrary opinion without giving facts to sustain it. Held that a change of venue should have been granted.^^ Where leading citizens make affidavits showing bias and prejudice against the defendant, a change of venue should be allowed, unless counter affidavits make denial by clear and direct lan- guage.^' An affidavit as to the prejudice of the inhabitants should state the facts, and not the mere conclusions of the witnesses, so that Iowa 346, 67 N. "W. 267; Thompson 105, 13 N. E. 259; Ransbottom v. v. S., 122 Ala. 12, 26 So. 141; S. v. S., 144 Ind. 250, 43 N. E. 218; S. v. Belvel, 89 Iowa 405, 56 N. W. 545; Hudspeth, 150 Mo. 12, 51 S. W. Mott V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. 368; 483. S. V. Headrick, 149 Mo. 396, 51 S. '"Gray v. P., 26 111. 345; Clark W. 99; Welsh v. S. (Neb.), 82 N. "W. v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 119; S. v. West- 368. Contra, Bowman v. Com., 96 fall, 49 Iowa 328, 3 Am. C. R. 349; Ky. 8, 16 Ky. L. 186, 27 S. W. 870; Edwards v. S., 25 Ark. 444. Gallaher v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 296, 50 " Higgins v. Com., 94 Ky. 54, 14 S. W. 388; Saffold v. S., 76 Miss. 258, Ky. L. 729, 21 S. W. 231, 9 Am. C. R. 24 So. 314; S. v. Grafton, 89 Iowa 21; S. v. Goddard, 146 Mo. 177, 48 109, 56 N. W. 257; S. v. Olds, 19 Or. S. W. 82; S. v. Henning, 3 S. D. 492, 397, 24 Pac. 394; Garcia v. S., 34 54 N. W. 536; Duggins v. S., 66 Ind. Fla. 311, 16 So. 223; Thompson v. S., 350. 117 Ala. 67, 23 So. 676. See Renf ro " Johnson v. Com., 5 Ky. L. 877, 5 v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 1013; S. Cr. L. Mag. 763; S. v. Billings, 77 V. Savage, 36 Or. 191, 60 Pac. 610, Iowa 417, 42 N. W. 456. 61 Pac. 1128. " Richmond v. S., 16 Neb. 388, 6 ' Dunn v. P., 109 111. 635, 4 Am. Cr. L. Mag. 923, 20 N. W. 282. C. R. 52; Droneberger v. S., 112 Ind. 736 hughes' criminal law. § 2818 the court may determine whether the community is or is not preju^ diced. The court is to make a finding from the facts.^* Article VII. Change, Wheeb. § 2818. To what court or county. — The venue may be changed from the circuit to county court, but not from the county to the cir- ,cuit court, under the statute of Illinois.^" When a change of venue is. granted, the case may be lawfully sent out of the judicial circuit to another circuit.^* Where the statute provides for a change of venue to any convenient county, and the court did not send the case to the nearest where the objection did not exist, but sent it to a county not adjoining the one from which taken, it was held error.^^ Article VIII. Change by Consent. §28ip. Change by consent of parties.'!— A change of venue may be had by consent of the parties to a cause.^* If the defendant con- sents that a change of venue may be taken to some county other than that designated by law, he can not question the jurisdiction of the court to which the cause was transferred, or, if the cause be sent to the wrong county, he waives the error by not excepting in the court mak- ing the transfer.*' § 2820. Trial in county of offense. — The defendant, by procuring a change of venue on his application, waives the right to be tried in the county or district where the offense is alleged to have been com- mitted."" Aeticle IX. When Several Deeendants. § 2821. Change for one severs from other defendants. — Change of venue for one defendant eifects a severance from his co-defendant, Who does not desire a change."* "Ter. V. Manton, 8 Mont 95, 19 Scam. (111.) 353. Compare S. v. Pac. 389, 8 Am. C. R. 526; P. v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80. Contra, Purvis Yoakum, 53 Cal. 567; S. v. Douglass, v. S., 71 Miss. 706, 14 So. 268. See 41 W. Va. 537, 23 S. E. 724. Grooms v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 319, 50 S. " Barr v. P., 103 111. 110; Swanson W. 370. V. P., 89 III. 589. » S. V. Jennings, 134 Mo. 277, 35 "Weyrich v. P., 89 111. 94. Com- S. W. 614; S. v. Gamble, 119 Mo. pare S. v. Klndig, 55 Kan. 113. 39 427, 24 S. W. 1030; S. v. Kent, 5 N. Pac. 1028. D. 516, 67 N. W. 1052. "Baxterv. P., 2Gilm. (111.) 580. » S. v. Crinklaw, 40 Neb. 759, 59 "Brennan v. P., 15 111. 511; S. v. N. W. 370. Peterson, 2 La. 921; P. v. Scates, 3 "Hunter v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 455; 5 2822 CHANGE OF VENUE. 737 § 2822. Application may be withdrawn. — A defendant may with- draw his application for a change of venue. ^^ Article X. Certifying the Cause. §2823. Improperly certified — ^Error waived. — The venue having been changed at the request of and upon the application of the de- fendant, he can not be heard to complain, in the court of review, if the certificate of the clerk was irregular or defective, in transferring the case. It was the duty of the defendant, before the trial began, to point out the defects of the certificate.^* An indictment as returned by the grand jury was against seven persons. Five of the defendants obtained a change of venue from Coles to Edgar county. The in- dictment, as certified to the Edgar circuit court, contained the names of six persons only, the name of one of the seven being omitted. Held error to try the defendants on this indictment. The state's at- torney, on perceiving the defect in the indictment, should have sug- gested a diminution of the record, and obtained a full and correct copy from Coles county.^** § 2824. Transmitting original papers, without certificate. — ^By thei law of the state of Nebraska, and perhaps most of the states, the original indictment must be sent to the clerk of the court to which ithe .cause is transferred.^* Sending the original indictment to the court to which the change is granted, without a certificate of the cler]i, will not vitiate the proceedings after verdict.''° Article XI. Same in Misdemeanor as Felony. § 2825. Law — Same in felony and misdemeanor. — ^Under the pres- ent law, and since the revision of the Illinois statutes of 1874, there is no distinction between capital and other offenses as to the right to a change of venue.''" Shular v. S., 105 Ind. 289, 7 Am. C. ^ Tucker v. P., 122 111. 589, 13 N. R. 509, 4 N. B. 870, 55 Am. R. 211; E. 809; Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) S. V. Carothers, 1 Greene (Iowa) 86; Perteet v. P., 70 111. 180. See S. 464; S. V. Martin, 2 Ired. (N. C.) v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277, 20 S, 101; S. V. Wetherford, 25 Mo. 439; W. 461 (seal). Contra, Hudley v. John V. S., 2 Ala. 290; Whar. Or. PI. S., 36 Ark. 237 (seal). & Pr. (8th ed.), §602; 1 Bish. Or. =»a Smith v. P., 36 111. 292. Proc, § 75; Brown v. S., 18 Ohio " Preuit v. S., 5 Neb. 377. St. 496 ^'^Holliday v. P., 4 Gilm. (111.) 111. ^^P. y. Zane, 105 111. 662, 5 Cr. ^« Price v. P., 131 111. 232, 23 N.. L. Mag. 795. B. 639. hughes' c. l.— 47 738 hughes' criminal law. § 2826 Article XII. Civil and Criminal Case. Alike. § 2826. Law — Same as in civil cases. — The principles governing the application for a change of venue are the same in civil and in criminal cases.^'^ Article XIII. Plea Eequired First. § 2827. Plea before granting change. — A plea should be entered by the defendant before a change of venue can be granted.^* But if a change of venue is granted on the application of the accused before arraignment, and he has the benefit of arraignment in the court to which the cause is transferred, he can not be heard to complain.-* Article XIV. Second Change. § 2828. Granting second change. — Although by statute in no case shall a second removal of any cause be allowed, yet a second change may be granted where the judge has been counsel in the cause, not- withstanding the statutory provision.'" § 2829. Taking recognizance after change. — The defendant having applied for and obtained a change of venue from Pike county, the •court was authorized by common law to take his recognizance, requir- ing him to appear at the circuit court in Adams county, where the •case was sent.*^ " P. v. Scates, 3 Scam. (111.) 353. =° S. v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40, 1 ^Gardiner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) Am. C. R. 257. Compare S. v. An- 88; Gilson v. Powers, 16 111. 355. derson, 96 Mo. 241, 9 S. W. 636. See » S. V. Kindig, 55 Kan. 113, 39 Webb v. S., 9 Tex. App. 490. Pac. 1028. " Stebbins v. P., 27 111. 240. CHAPTEE LXXIX. ARRAIGNMENT. Art. I. Arraignment and Plea, § 3830 II. On Former Conviction, § 2831 III. Withdrawing Plea, §§ 2833-2833 IV. Arraignment, When Presumed, ... § 3834 V. Copy of Indictment, § 3835 VI. Standing Mute, § 3836 VII. Arraignment Waived, § 3837 VIII. Pleading Guilty, . ' § 3838 Article I. Arraignment and Plea. §2830. Plea essential — ^Arraignment defined. — The arraignment and plea of the defendant should be the first step in the progress of a trial upon an indictment for a felony, as essential to the formation of an issue. ^ "To arraign is nothing else but to call the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged upon him in the indict- ment." One arraignment is sufficient, though tried a second time.^ Article II. On Former Conviction. § 2831. rormer conviction — ^Indictment. — A plea of "not guilty" to an indictment containing a count or charge of a prior conviction puts in issue such prior conviction together with the subsequent of- fense. The accused should be arraigned on such an indictment in the same manner as if it did not contain a charge of a former conviction.' "■ Parkinson v. P., 135 111. 402, 25 = P. v. Gutierrez, 74 Cal. 81, 15 N. E. 764; Minich v. P., 8 Colo. 440, Pac. 444; Thomas v. Com., 22 Gratt. 9 Pac. 4, 5 Am. C. R. 22. (Va.) 912; Ex parte Young Ah Gow. 'i Bl. Com. 322; Fitzpatrick v. P., 73 Cal. 438, 15 Pac. 76. 98 111. 260; S. v. Tate, 156 Mo. 119. 56 S. W. 1099 (second trial). (739) 740 hughes' criminal law. § 2832 Article III. Withdrawing Plea. § 2832. Withdrawing plea, discretionary. — It is discretionary with the court to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of not guilty for the purpose of entering his motion to quash the indictment.* § 2833. Plea withdrawn — Must plead again. — Where the defend- ant, after having entered his plea of not guilty, withdraws it for the purpose of moving the court to quash the indictment, and his motion to quash is overruled, he must again plead to the indictment. The overruling of the motion to quash is not a reinstatement of the plea nor a waiver.^ Article IV. Arraignment, When Presumed. § 2834. Arraignment presumed. — If the record is silent as to ar- raignment and plea, it will be presumed that the defendant was prop- erly arraigned and entered his plea, unless there is something to show affirmatively that he was not arraigned and did not plead.* Article V. Copt op Indictment. § 2835. rumishing copy of indictment — ^Waived. — The furnishing of a copy of the indictment will answer the purpose of reading the same to the defendant. The common law formality is disused.'' If the accused pleads to the indictment, without having been first pro- vided with a copy of the indictment, or list of witnesses or petit jurors, as provided by statute, he waives the right to the same.* Article VI. Standing Mute. § 2836. Standing mute. — ^TJnder the common law, in the highest crimes as well as in the lowest species of felony, namely, petit larceny, * P. V. Lewis, 64 Cal. 401, 1 Pac. Grigg v. P., 31 Mich. 471, 1 Am. C. 490; Adams v. S., 28 Fla. 511, 10 R. 602; Davis v. S., 38 Wis. 487, 1 So. 106; Ter. v. Barrett, 8 N. M. 70, Am. C. R. 606. 42 Pac. 66; S. v. Van Nice, 7 S. D. 'Minicli v. P., 8 Colo. 440, 9 Pac. 104, 63 N. W. 637. 4, 5 Am. C. R. 24; Goodin v. S., IS "Hatfield v. S., 9 Ind. App. 296, Ohio St. 344. 36 N. E. 664; P. v. Monaghan, 102 'Kelly v. P., 132 III. 371, 24 N. B. Cal. 229, 36 Pac. 511; S. v. Hunter, 56; McKinney v. P., 2 Gilm. (111.) 43 La. 157, 8 So. 624. Contra, Mor- 553; S. v. Fuller, 14 La. 667; Loper ton V. P., 47 111. 468. See also v. S., 3 How. (Miss.) 429; Hicks v. Hensche v. P., 16 Mich. 46. S., Ill Ind. 402, 12 N. B. 522; Mlnich »Ter. V. Shipley, 4 Mont. 468, 2 v. P., 8 Colo. 440, 9 Pac. 4; Bartley Pac. 313, 4 Am. C. R. 491. Contra, v. P., 156 III. 234, 40 N. E. 831. § 2837 AKRAIGNMENT. ~ ' 741 and in all misdemeanors, standing mute hath always been equivalent; to eonvietion." Article VII. Arraignmenx Waived. §2837. Arraignment waived. — The formal arraignment may be waived by the defendant appearing and pleading to the indictment.^' Article VIII. Pleading Guilty. § 2838. Pleading guilty. — ^By a plea of guilty the defendant con- fesses the indictment to be wholly true as charged.^^ But the plea of guilty does not admit that the facts alleged in the indictment amount to an offense.^^ « 4 Bl. Com. 325. Cr. L. Mag. 286; P. v. Cignarale, 110 "S. V. Weeden, 133 Mo. 70, 34 N. Y. 32, 17 N. E. 135; S. v. Queen, S. W. 473; Ransom v. S., 49 Ark. 91 N. C. 659. 176, 4 S. W. 658; S. v. Grate, 68 Mo. "Fletcher v. S., 12 Ark. 169; Crow 22, 3 Am. C. R. 324. V. S., 6 Tex. 334. See P. v. Delany, "Ter. v. Miller (Dak. Ter.), 8 49 Cal. 395. CHAPTBE LXXX. TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 'AsT. I. Arraignment and Plea, § 2839 II. Separate Trial, When, §§ 2840-2843 III. Presence of Defendant, §§ 2843-2846 IV. Objections and Exceptions, §§ 2847-2858 V. Arguments and Eemarks, §§ 2859-2871 VI. Waiving Eights, §§ 2872-2876 VII. Matters of Practice, §§2877-2889 Article I. Arraignment and Plea. § 2839. Arraignment and plea, — Plea nunc pro tunc. — There must be an arraignment and plea of the defendant entered before the jury is sworn to try the issues; and entering the plea after the case is in progress, and a witness sworn and examined, will not cure the error. A plea can not be entered nunc -pro tunc after verdict.^ But where the defendant went to trial without entering his plea, and after the trial a plea of not guilty was entered nunc pro tunc by the court, in open court in his presence, and he made no objection, he is bound by such order.^ 'Parkinson v. P., 135 111. 403, 25 v. S., 91 Ala. 55, 8 So. 773; Hos- N. E. 764; S. v. Hughes, 1 Ala. 655; kins v. P., 84 111. 88; S. v. Williams, P. V. Gaines, 52 Cal. 479; S. v. Mont- 117 Mo. 379, 22 S. W. 1104; Johnson gomery, 63 Mo. 296; Gould v. P., v. P., 22 111. 317; Link v. S., 3 Helsk. 89 111. 217; S. v. Bpps, 27 La. 227; (Tenn.) 252; Aylesworth v. P., 65 S. V. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234, 2 Green 111. 302; S. v. Cunningham, 94 N. C. R. 596; S. v. Wilson, 42 Kan. C. 824; Yundt v. P., 65 111. 374; 587, 22 Pac. 622. But see S. v. Bowen v. S., 108 Ind. 411, 9 N. E. Hayes, 67 Iowa 27, 24 N. W. 575, 6 378; Billings v. S., 107 Ind. 54, S Am. C. R. 335; P. v. Tower, 63 Hun N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 7 Am. C. R. 624, 17 N. Y. Supp. 395; S. v. Thomp- 188. son, 95 Iowa 464, 64 N. W. 419; 'Long v. P., 102 111. 336; Spicer P. V. Bradner, 10 N. Y. St. 667; Shaw v. P., 11 111. App. 294. See S. v. V. S., 17 Tex. App. 225; Ray v. P., Hayes, 67 Iowa 27, 24 N. W. 575; S. 6 Colo. 231; P. v. Gaines, 52 Cal. v. Glave, 51 Kan. 330. 33 Pac. 8. 479; S. V. West, 84 Mo. 440; Jackson (742)] 2840 TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 743 . Article II. Separate Trial, When. § 2840. Separate trial discretionary. — The granting of a separate rial is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will not be ■eviewed unless it appears there was an abuse of that discretion.* ilrror can not ordinarily be assigned upon the court's refusal to give he accused separate trials.* § 2841. Separate trial — ^When should be allowed. — On a joint in- lictment, if it appears that evidence competent against one defendant s incompetent and damaging as to others, a separate trial should be granted : as, for example, a confession made by one of the defendants n a capital case.^ Or that the wife of one defendant is a material dtness for the other is a sufficient ground for a separate trial.' § 2842. Result if separate trial is allowed. — In cases where a leparate trial is awarded, there being no provision of law by which. I part of the cause may be transferred to another branch of the same !0urt, it must be tried in the branch of the court which has jurisdic- ion of the cause and where the indictment is pending/ Article III. Presence of Defendant. § 2843. Presence of defendant essential. — The better opinion is ;hat the rule that the accused in cases of felony must be present in jerson pending the trial should be adhered to from the arraignment :o the final sentence.* It is not within the authority of the prisoner's 'Doyle V. P., 147 111. 397, 35 N. B. 593, 61 N. W. 865; V. S. v. Ball, 163 172; Johnson v. P., 22 111. 317; U. U. S. 662, 16 S. Ct. 1192. 3. V. Marchant, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 'Maton v. P., 15 111. 539; Com. v. 180; S. V. Soper, 16 Me. 293; Bix- Thompson, 108 Mass. 461; Com. v. )e V. S., 6 Ohio 86; S. v. Smith, 2 Robinson, 67 Mass. 555; Com. v. ired. (N. C.) 402; U. S. v. Gilbert, 2 Lewis, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 938; S. v. 3um. (U. S.) 19; Hawkins v. S., Meaker, 54 Vt. 112; S. v. Doolittle, t Ala. 137; S. v. Fournier, 68 Vt. 58 N. H. 92. !62, 35 Atl. 178; S. v. Desroche, 47 "White v. P., 81 111. 336; Com. v. -•a. 651, 17 So. 209; Ballard v. S., 31 James, 99 Mass. 438. ria. 266, 12 So. 865; Spies v. P., 122 "1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 127; Com. v. 11. 265, 12 N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898; Easland, 1 Mass. 15. 3. V. Pinley, 118 N. C. 1161, 24 S. E. ' P. v. Matson, 129 111. 596, 22 N. 195; Gillespie v. P., 176 111. 242, 52 E. 456. The fact that a co-defend- '^. B. 250; Stewart v. S., 64 Miss, ant opposes an application for a sep- i26, 2 So. 73; Givens v. S., 109 Ala. arate trial is no ground for refusal: 19, 19 So. 974; Com. v. James, 99 Kelley v. P., 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. R. Hass. 438; P. v. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230; 342. ^m. v. Seeley 167 Mass. 163, 45 N. ' Stubbs v. S., 49 Miss. 716, 1 Am. 3. 91; P. V. Fuhrmann, 103 Mich. C. R. 611; Rolls v. S., 52 Miss. 391; 744 hughes' criminal law. § 2844 counsel to waive for him his right to be present when the verdict of the jury in a felony ease is delivered.® 1 2844. Presence of defendant — ^When not essential. — The pres-' ence of the defendant is not required during the arguments of a motion merely preliminary to or preceding the trial.^" § 2845. Defendant absconding during trial. — In all criminal cases, if the defendant voluntarily absents himself during the trial, the court may proceed to final judgment against him in his absence.^' § 2846. Trial where two indictments. — Compelling a defendant to proceed to trial on a second indictment for the same ofEense before the first is disposed of is not error.^^ Article IV. Objections and Exceptions. § 2847. Bill of exceptions essential. — ^A court of review will not be authprized to consider or pass upon the rulings of the trial court on the admission of evidence, the giving or refusing of instructions, motion for a new trial, or other matters or proceedings which are not a part of the record proper, unless exceptions be taken to such rulings at the proper time and embodied in a bill of exceptions.^^ And the rulings of the trial court on constitutional questions must likewise be preserved in a bill of exceptions, for they can not be raised for the first time in a court of review.^^* But where it appears that the trial S. V. Smith, 44 Kan. 75, 24 Pac. 84; >= Gannon v. P., 127 111. 523, 21 Lovettv. S., 29 Fla. 356, 11 So. 172; N. E. 525; Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. S. V. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 Am. (Mass.) 279; S. v. McKinney, 31 R. 643; Sewell v. P., 189 111. 175, 59 Kan. 570, 3 Pac. 356, 5 Am. C. R. N. B. 583. See Schirmer v. P., 33 540. 111. 276, 284. See "Sentence." "Gill v. P., 42 111. 323; Bergdahl •Cook V. S., 60 Ala. 39, 3 Am. C. v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 228; S. v. R. 305. Morrow, 40 S. C. 221, 18 S. E. 853, '» Epps V. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. 9 Am. C. R. 37. See S. v. Ward, 61 491, 5 Am. C. R. 520; Miller v. S., Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483, 8 Am. C. R. 211; 29 Neb. 437, 45 N. W. 451; S. v. At- P. v. Guidici, 100 N. Y. 503, 3 N. E. kinson, 40 S. C. 363, 18 S. E. 1021, 493, 5 Am. C. R. 456; 2 Thomp. 42 Am. R. 877; Ward v. Ter., 8 Okl. Trials, § 2804; McKee v. Calvert, 80 12, 56 Pac. 704. Contra, S. v. Clif- Mo. 348; S. v. Moore, 156 Mo. 135, ton, 57 Kan. 448, 46 Pac. 715. 56 S. W. 900; Harris v. S. (Tex. " Harris V. P., 130 111. 457, 22 N. E. Cr.), 56 S. W. 622. See "Records" 826; Sahlinger v. P., 102 111. 245; generally. See §§ 2847, 2852, 2856, S. V. Guinness, 16 R. I. 401, 16 Atl. 3396, 3397. 910; Com. v. McCarthy, 163 Mass. "»-S. v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 117, 56 458, 40 N. E. 766; S. v. Kelly, 97 S. W. 894; S. v. Pitts, 156 Mo. 247, N. C. 404, 2 S. B. 185; S. v. Perkins, 56 S. W. 887 (evidence); Shenken- 40 La. 210, 3 So. 647; Prey v. Cal- herger v. S., 154 Ind. 630, 57 N. E. houn Circuit Judge, 107 Mich. 130, 519 (evidence); S. v. Moore, 156 Mo. 64 N. W. 1047. See "Sentence." 135, 56 S. W. 900. See S. v. Schu- man, 36 Or. 16, 58 Pac. 661; Craw- 2848 TKIAL AND INCIDENTS. 745 ourt was without jurisdiction of the subject-mafter, then such Juris- lictional question may be raised for the first time in a court of review. The court will, in such case, ex mero motu, take notice of such de- § 2848, Exception to ruling on motion to quash. — The indictment )eing a part of the record without a bill of exceptions, there is no lecessity of excepting to the ruling of the court upon the motion quash.^* And a motion in arrest of judgment saves itself without :he necessity of a bill of exceptions.^" § 2849. Objection, when to be made. — Objection to incompetent evidence should be made at the time and the ground of objection itated. It will not do to state the reasons for objection, for the first time, on the motion for a new trial.^" § 2850. Objection too general. — When the objection to evidence is ^ener.al, and it is overruled, and the evidence is received, the ruling svill not be held erroneous, unless there be some grounds which couli Qot have been obviated had they been specified, or unless the evidence in its essential nature be incompetent.^'' § 2851. Objection to be specific. — If a witness gives testimony, a part of which is competent and a part not, a general objection and exception will be overruled. The objection should be made specifically to the objectionable portion at the time before the witness answers.^* When an objection is made to testimony apparently relevant and com- petent the objection should be specifically set forth, so that it may not only be brought to the notice of the presiding judge, but be met by the opposite party. Otherwise it will be considered as waived.^* ford V. S., 155 Ind. 692, 57 N. B. 931; 424; Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. S. v. Edwards, 126 N. C. 1051, 35 (U. S.) 515-530; Phelps v. Mayer, S. E. 540 (new evidence). 15 How. (U. S.) 160. See Hobbs v. "b Lowery v. State Life Ins. Co., P., 183 III. 336, 55 N. E. 692. 153 Ind. 102, 54 N. E. 442; Doctor v. " Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 Hartman, 74 Ind. 221; Campbell v. S. Ct. 273, 10 Am. C. R. 174; Castliu Porter, 162 TJ. g. 478, 482; 12 Bncyc. v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 827; Tozer PI. & Pr. 190. V. New York, etc., Co., 105 N. Y. 659; "Baker v. P., 105 111. 454; Galli- 11 N. E. 846; Wright v. S. (Fla.), more v. Dazey, 12 111. 143; Safford 27 So. 863; Alcorn v. Chicago, etc., V. Vail, 22 111. 327. See Keedy v. R. Co., 108 Mo. 81, 18 S. W. 188; P., 84 111. 569; Raines v. S. (Fla.), Lowenstein v. McCadden, 92 Tenn. 28 So. 57. 614, 22 S. W. 426; Ward v. Wilms, '"Nichols V. P., 40 111. 396; Harris 16 Colo. 86, 27 Pac. 247. V. S., 155 Ind. 265, 56 N. W. 916. "Myers v. P., 26 111. 173. See See Brown v. S. (Fla.), 27 So. 869. Sparf v. V. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 S. Ct. "Harvey v. S., 40 Ind. 516, 1 273, 10 Am. C. R. 173. Green C. R. 747; 2 Thoml). Trials, " S. v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171, 2 Green. § 2786; McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. C. R. 460. 746 hughes' criminal law. § 2852 § 2852. No exceptions taken — ^Irregpilarity waived. — No excep- tions having been taken on the trial as to the giving of certain preju- dicial testimony, the point can not be considered in the court of re- view.^" A prisoner has no right to stand by and sufEer irregular or prejudicial proceedings to take place without objection and exception ; and if he does so he waives his rights as to such irregularities. This rule applies to capital as well as other cases. ^'^ § 2853. Ruling on rejected evidence. — It is a general rule that an exception to the admission or rejection of evidence must be so framed as to disclose the nature of the evidence admitted or rejected, other- wise the reviewing court can not intelligently pass judgment upon it. Error can not be assigned in the ruling out of evidence, unless it is distinctly shown what was the evidence so ruled out, in order that its relevancy may appear and that prejudice has arisen from its rejec- tion.^^ Where the exception is to the exclusion of evidence it must be so framed as to inform the reviewing court what answer the wit- ness was expected to give; counsel should inform the court what he proposes to prove.^* Several questions were asked a witness by the defense, to which answers were not permitted. As it does not ap- pear from the record what evidence was expected to be elicited, it can not be determined that the rulings of the court were wrong.^* § 2854. Evidence competent against one, but not as to others. — Where the evidence offered is clearly incompetent as to one of two defendants, on general objection it should be rejected by the court, though competent against the other, even though the objection be made for each defendant.^' § 2855. Exception to instructions — Too general. — A general ex- ception to the whole charge of the court, and to each part of it, when * Hughes V. P., 116 111. 337, 6 N. E. Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175, 187; 55; Graham V. P., 115 111. 568, 4 N. E. Haynes v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 790; Moeck v. P.. 100 111. 244. 923; Roberts v. Roberts, 85 N. C. 9; ^'Graham v. P., 115 111. 568, 4 Mergentheim v. S., 107 Ind. 567, 8 N. E. 790; Bulllner y. P., 95 111. 401; N. E. 567. See Carter v. Texas, 177 Perteet v. P., 70 111. 179;* Mayes v. U. S. 442, 20 S. Ct. 687; Carter v. S., P., 106 111. 314; Bradshaw v. S., 17 39 Tex. Cr. 345, 46 S. W. 236, 48 S. Neb. 147, 22 N. W. 361, 5 Am. C. R. W. 508; City of St. Louis v. Bab- 503; Brotherton v. P., 75 N. Y. 159, cock, 156 Mo. 148, 56 S. W. 732. 3 Am. C. R. 219. See §§ 2847, 2856. " S. v. Montgomery, 65 Iowa 483 "2 Thomp. Trials, § 2805, citing 22 N. W. 639, 5 Am. C. R. 56; Burns Summer v. Candler, 92 N. C. 634. v. S., 49 Ala. 370, 1 Am. C R 327 =^2 Thomp. Trials, §§ 678, 2805; =» Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S 5i 15 Whitney v. S., 154 Ind. 573, 57 N. E. S. Ct. 273, 10 Am. C. R 174 See 398; Allen v. S., 73 Ala. 23; Jackson "Evidence." T. Com., 98 Va. 845, 36 S. E. 487; { 2856 TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 747 the charge contains more than a single proposition of law and is not in all respects erroneous, presents no question for review on error or appeal.^^ § 2856. Exception to instructions, when. — It must appear by the transcript or bill of exceptions not only that the instructions were given or refused at the trial but also that the party who complains of them excepted to the giving or refusing of them at the time they were given or refused in open court.^'' § 2857. Exception to instructions should be specific. — A party, in excepting to the giving or refusing of instructions, should point out definitely the instructions or part of the charge complained of and state the grounds upon which he excepts ; otherwise a court of review is not bound to take notice of the exception. Eef erring to the in- structions collectively in taking exceptions is not sufficient.^* § 2858. Instruction in capital case. — It has been held that a court of review will consider an objectionable instruction in a capital case, though no exception was taken to it in the trial court.^° Article V. Aegdments and Eemaeks. § 2859. Improper remarks by court. — Eemarks of the trial Judge and questions to the witnesses in reference to the issues on trial and comments on the evidence, or seeking to sustain the witness by the judge, will, in a case at all "doubtful, reverse.^" The court addressing counsel for the defendant, said : "Do you mean to say, sir, that there is no evidence here to show the guilt of the defendant ? I say there is evidence." Held prejudicial error.^^ The court, in stating to the jury, when they requested to be discharged because they could not agree, that "before the next term of the court the witnesses may be ^ Jones V. Osgood, 2 Seld. (N. Y.) (Neb.), 83 N. W. 198; Crawford v. 233, cited in Adams v. S., 25 Ohio S., 155 Ind. 692 57 N B 931. St 584 "° Falk v. P., 42 111. 335. "2 Thomp. Trials, § 2802; Phelps "Burke v. P. 148 111 75 35 N. B. v. Mayer. 15 How. (U. S.) 161; S. v. 376; Lycan v. P.. 107 111. 428 See Waters, 156 Mo. 132, 56 S. W. 734; Felker v. S., 54 Ark. 489, 16 S. W. S. v. West 157 Mo. 309, 57 S. W. 663; Garner v. S., 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 1071; P. V. Shirlock (N. E.),59N. B. 835. ^,, ^n i=i-7 r-, 830. See §§ 2847, 2852. '^Feinherg v. P., 174 111. 617 51 "AAsLms V. S., 25 Ohio St. 584, 2 N. B. 798; Synon v. P., 188 111. 609, Am. C. R. 395; Hawkins v. S. 624, 59 N. B. 508. 748 hughes' criminal law, § 2860 in their graves and justice may be cheated out of its victim," com- mitted prejudicial error.^^ § 2860. Court indicating opinion, — After the jury had been con-. sidering of their verdict, on being sent for by the court one of the jurors remarked to the court, in the presence and hearing of the counsel for the state and the accused and in the presence of the accused and hearing of the rest of the jury, that he thought the jury could not agree. Whereupon the court responded to the juror in the same presence and hearing: "I see no reason why the jury can not agree upon a verdict in this case," and again directed the jury to retire and further consider of their verdict. The remark of the court was held error .'^ § 2861. Improper arguments. — Eemarks and statements made by the state's attorney, calculated to inflame the minds of the jury to the prejudice of the defendant, and unwarranted from the evidence, will be error in a case where the facts are not satisfactory.** § 2862. Calling defendant scoundrel. — The court permitted the state's attorney, in addressing the jury, to use the following language : ''The defendant is such a scoundrel that he was compelled to move his trial from Jones county to a county where he is not known. The bold, brazen-faced rascal had the impudence to write me a note yesterday begging me not to prosecute him and threatening me if I did, he would get the legislature to impeach me." Held prejudicial error.'" § 2863. Eemarks not prejudicial. — Where it appears from the rec- ord that improper remarks of counsel for the state during his argu- ment did not prejudice the rights of the accused, a verdict of convic- tion will not be disturbed on that account.'" § 2864. Court should confilie arguments. — It is the duty of the court to confine the arguments of counsel to such matters as properly »= Fisher v. P., 23 111. 228, 231; C. R. 581; S. v. King, 64 Mo. 595. Com. V. Werntz, 161 Pa. St. 591, 29 See "Records." Atl. 272. » S. V. Smith, 75 N. C. 306, 1 Am. " S. V. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 Am. C. R. 581. See Scott v. S., 91 Wis. C. R. 117; P. V. Kindleberger, 100 552, 65 N. W. 61, 10 Am. C. R. 153; Cal. 367, 34 Pac. 852. S. v. Bohbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. =* Raggio V. P., 135 111. 545, 26 N. 1149, 10 Am. C. R. 8. B. 377; McDonald v. P., 126 111. 153, ™Bpps v. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. 18 N. E. 817; Fox v. P., 95 111. 78. 491, 5 Am. C. R. 527. See S. v. Smith, 75 N. C. 306, 1 Am. § 2865 TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 749 pertain to the case, and not permit reference to matters prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.'^ § 2865. Court shall not deny argument. — ^It is not within the dis- cretion of the court to deny counsel for the accused the right to argue the question of fact before the jury, however conclusive the facts may appear to be against the accused.'' § 2866. Waiving argument. — The plaintiff may waive the opening argument if he desires; then if the defendant waives his argument the case will go to the jury without any argument.'' § 2867. Argument on "good time" — Objectionable. — The state's at- torney, in his argument to the jury, called their attention to what is known as the "good time" statute, and insisted, over the objection of counsel for the defendant, that it should be taken into consideration in fixing the term of imprisonment : Held error.*" § 2868. Improper argument must be objected to. — Improper lan- guage used by counsel in his argument to the jury must be objected to and the attention of the court called to the same, and a ruling had and embodied in a bill of exceptions before the same will be considered by a court of review.*^ § 2869. Limiting arguments. — Where the court limits the argu- ments without objection or asking further time it will avail a party nothing to raise the point on a motion for a new trial.*^ Where sev- eral witnesses were examined in a felony case, where the value of property stolen was found by the jury to be one hundred and twenty- five dollars, a limitation of five minutes for the argument was a vir- tual denial of the right of the accused to be heard by counsel.*' "McDonald v. P., 126 111. 156, 18 v. P., 127 111. 519, 21 N. B. 525; N. E. 817; Smith v. P., 8 Colo. 457, Scott v. P., 141 111. 214, 30 N. E. 329; 8 Pac. 920, 5 Am. C. R. 616; P. v. Earll v. P., 99 111. 136; Martin v. S., Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411. 79 Wis. 165, 48 N. W. 119; Matthew? "White v. P., 90 111. 118. Com- v. P., 6 Colo. App. 456, 41 Pac. 839; pare Bill v. P., 14 111. 432. Metz v. S., 46 Neb. 547, 65 N. W. '"Trask v. P., 151 111. 530, 38 N. E. 190; Saylor v. Com. (Ky.), 57 S. W. 248. 614; S. v. Keenan (Iowa), 82 N. W. "Parrel! v. P., 133 111. 246, 24 792; S. v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222, 56 N. E. 423. S. W. 734. "Campbell v. P., 109 111. 577; « Long v. P., 102 111. 337. Mayes v. P., 106 111. 314; Gannon "White v. P., 90 111. 119; Dille v. 750 hughes' criminal law. § 2870 § 2870. Eemarks on defendant's conduct. — If the defendant elects to become a witness in his own behalf and refuses to submit to a full cross-examination within proper limits, then all his conduct and de- meanor are proper matters of comment by counsel.** § 2871. Beading from law books. — Counsel, in his argument to the jury, may read reported decisions from the reports, and may read the statement of facts of such cases, and may comment on the same.*° In some of the states, where the jury are not made the judges of the law, it has been held discretionary whether counsel should read from the law books to the jury.*° Article VI. Waiving Eights. § 2872. Defendant may waive rights. — The accused in a capital case is not presumed to waive any of his rights, but he may, by express consent, admit them all away, but the consent must be aflBrmatively shown.*^ § 2873. rurnishing copy of indictment — List of witnesses. — Where a change of venue had been taken, and a copy of the indictment sent instead of the original to the county of the trial, the defendant waives his right to be tried on the original by going to trial on the copy.*' If . the accused proceed to trial without demanding a copy of the indict- ment, list of the witnesses and jurors, he waives the right to the same.*" The list of witnesses which is required to be furnished to the de- fendant before arraignment means the witnesses indorsed on the in- dictment by the foreman of the grand jury.^" S., 34 Ohio St. 617, 3 Am. C. R. 374; 5 S. W. 257, 330; Legg v. Drake, 1 P. v. Keenan, 13 Cal. 581; Hunt v. Ohio St. 287. S., 49 Ga. 255, 2 Green C. R. 587; "Perteet v. P., 70 111. 179; P. v. S. v. Collins, 70 N. C. 241, 2 Green Seates, 3 Scam. (111.) 351. Contra, C. R. 740. Dempsey v. P., 47 111. 325; Hopt v. " S. V. Oher, 52 N. H. 459, 1 Green Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 S. Ct. 202, C. R. 211. 4 Am. C. R. 421. "Wollord V. P., 148 111. 300, 36 "Goodhue v. P., 94 111. 47. N. B. 107; Klepfer v. S., 121 Ind. "McKinney v. P., 2 Glim. (111.) 491, 23 N. E. 287; Stout v. S., 96 553; Hartley v. P., 156 111. 240, 40 Ind. 411; S. v. Verry, 36 Kan. 416, N. E. 831; Minich v. P., 8 Colo. 440, 13 Pac. 838; S. v. Anderson, 43 Conn. 9 Pac. 4, 5 Am. C. R. 27; Fouts v. 514; S. V. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 338; S. v. S., 8 Ohio St. 98; Pressley v. S., Whitmore, 53 Kan. 343, 36 Pac. 748. 19 Ga. 192; S. v. Russell, 33 La. "Com. V. Hill, 145 Mass. 305, 14 135. N. B. 124; S. V. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, ■» Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 89. § 2874 TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 751 § 2874. Waiving jury. — Where a statute authorizes a defendant in a criminal ease to waive all right to a jury trial it would not authorize him to consent to a trial by a jury of less than twelve jurors.°^ § 2875. Waiving presence of witnesses. — All of the authorities agree that the accused may waive the right to be confronted with the witnesses on the trial. ^^ § 2876. Waiving constitutional rights. — The defendant may waive his constitutional rights, with few exceptions.^' Aeticle VII. Matters of Practice. §2877. Plea in abatement before merits. — Where, by statute, a preliminary examination is required to be had before the state's at- torney can lawfully file an information for a criminal offense, the bet- ter practice is for the defendant to plead the want of such examination in abatement of the information before pleading to the merits. The state's attorney can then take issue on the plea and the fact can be determined by proof, the burden of proving the plea being on the de- fendant. In the absence of such issue and proof all essential prelimi- nary proceedings must be presumed.®* § 2878. Supplying lost indictment by copy. — The court may sup- ply a lost indictment by copy, but this can only be done when there is evidence to show that the indictment had become a record of the court.®® § 2879. Bill of particulars — ^When. — A motion for a bill of partic- ulars is a motion addressed -to the discretion of the court, and as such is not reversible error on a bill of exceptions.®" A party when re- "Wartner v. S., 102 Ind. 51, 1 N. 63 "Wis., 285, 23 N. W. 587; S. v. E. 65, 5 Am. C. R. 180; Moore v. S., Kaufman, 51 Iowa 578, 2 N. W. 275, 72 Ind. 358. See "Jury; Jurors." 2 Am. C. R. 626. ^ S. V. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, 9 Am. « S. v. Leicham, 41 Wis. 565, 2 G. R. 369, 38 Pac. 124; S. v. Wag- Am. C. R. 126. ner, 78 Mo. 644; S. v. Poison, 29 =* S. v. Simpson, 67 Mo. 647, 3 Am. • Iowa 133; Williams v. S., 61 Wis. C. R. 332. 292, 21 N. W. 56; Shular v.. S., 105 "» S. v. Nagle, 14 R. I. 331, 5 Am. Ind. 298, 4 N. B. 870; Cooley Const. C. R. 334; Howard v. P. (Colo.), Lim. 318. 61 Pac. 595; S. v. Hood, 51 Me. °'Smurr v. S., 105 Ind. 125, 4 N. 363; Chaffee v. Soldan, 5 Mich. 242; E. 445, 7 Am. C. R. 554; Waiver, Com. v. Wood, 4 Gray (Mass.) 11. «tc., 6 Cr. L. Mag. 182; In re Staff, But see S. v. Wooley, 59 Vt. 357, 10 752 hughes' criminal law. § 2880 quired te furnish the other side a bill of particulars must be confined t'o the particulars specified, as closely and effectually as if they consti- tuted the allegations in the indictment."' § 2880. Denmrrer to evidence. — The court should not pass upon the merits of a case in considering a demurrer to the facts or evidence, if the demurrer is so inartificially drawn and the facts so improperly stated as to leave the rights of the parties doubtful."* § 2881. Demurring to indictment. — The doctrine seems to be ia England that if a defendant demur to an indictment for a misde- meanor, and the demurrer be overruled, judgment of conviction is rendered, but in felonies the rule is different."* § 2882. Striking cause from docket. — On motion of the state's at- torney a cause was stricken from the docket by leave of the court. This action in striking the case absolutely and unconditionally amounted to a nolle prosequi and a reinstatement of the cause at a subsequent term of the court and trial were illegal acts.®" But if a case be stricken from the docket with leave to reinstate, it may again be placed upon the docket and tried.®^ If an order be made striking the ease from the docket, and no exception taken, it will be presumed the court acted upon sufficient cause.'" § 2883. Election as to counts. — The courts will only listen to* the request to compel the prosecution to elect in felonies when they can see that the charges are actually distinct and may confound the de- fendant or distract the attention of the jury. Otherwise it is a matter resting in the discretion of the court, and a refusal to compel such election can not be assigned for error."' Atl. 84, holding that the accused ner v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 33, 1 Is entitled to a bill of particulars. Green C. R. 664; 4 Bl. Com. 334. "Com. V. Davis, 11 Pick. (Mass.) "Kistler v. S., 64 Ind. 371, 3 Am. 434; McDonald v. P., 126 111. 160, 18 C. R. 25. N. B. 817, 7 ^im. C. R. 137; Com. "Blalock v. Randall, 76 111. 225; V. Snelling, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 321; Tlbbs v. Allen, 29 111. 547. P. V. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54. See " P., v. Green, 54 111. 280. Weimer v. P., 186 111. 506, 58 N. "»S. v. Leicham, 41 Wis. 565, 2 E. 378. Am. C. R. 126; Miller v. S., 25 "Wis. =' Crowe V. P., 92 111. 236. See 384. See "Indictments," § 2784. § 2767. "Johnson v. P., 22 111. 317; Fulk- § 2884 TRIAL AND INCIDENTS. 753 § 2884. Admitting of further evidence. — The admission of further evidence after the case has been closed and after arguments made, hut before the jury has retired, is a matter resting in the sound discre- tion of the court, and is not ground for error unless that discretioiL was abused."* § 2885. Law of procedure. — Prosecutions commenced before the repeal of a statute shall be carried on after the repealing law takes effect, with the law of procedure then in force, that is, the new law.!"" § 2886. Striking plea from files, when error. — To strike from the files a plea in abatement, in due form and verified, without submitting the same for trial to a jury, is error."" § 2887. Special plea and general issue. — It has been held that if a defendant plead a special plea, and also the general issue, it is error to compel him to go to trial on both at the same time."' § 2888. Plea of former acquittal — Practice. — When the plea of autre fois acquit upon its face shows that the offenses are legally dis- tinct and incapable of identification by averments the replication of nul tiel record may conclude with a verification and the court may de- cide the issue."* § 2889. Failure to file briefs in court of review. — In criminal cases, the court of review will not affirm the judgment of the court below merely for a failure to file briefs within the rule of the court of re- view."° "Tucker v. P., 122 111. 594, 13 N. Merrill, 8 Allen (Mass.) 545; Henry- B. 809. V. S., 33 Ala. 389; Solllday v. Com.. "■^ Parmer v. P., 77 111. 324; P. v. 28 Pa. St. 13; 4 Bl. Com. 338; 1 Bish. Mortimer, 46 Cal. 114, 2 Green C. Cr. Proc. (Sd ed.), § 752. R. 428; Powers v. S., 87 Ind. 144. "Clem v. S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. ™Amann v. P., 76 111. 188. R. 369, 2 Green C. R. 702. <" Clem V. S., 42 Ind. 420, 13 Am. " Presser v. P., 98 111. 406. R. 369, 2 Green C. R. 694; Com. v. , hughes' c. l.- CHAPTER LXXXI. court; attorney. Art. I. Assigning Counsel to Defend, ....§§ 2890-3891 II. Private Counsel for State, § 289? III. Privileged Communications, § 2893 IV. Disbarment; Striking from Eoll, . . . §§2894-2897 V. Court, What Constitutes, § 2898 VI. Authority of Judge, §§ 2899-2903 VII. Adjournment; Terms, §§ 2904r-2905 VIII. Branches of Court, § 2906 IX. Justice of Peace Court, §§ 2907-2910 Article I. Assigning Counsel to Defenb. § 2890. Counsel assigned for defendant. — Every person charged ■with crime shall be allowed counsel, and if unable to procure one of his choice the court shall assign him competent counsel, who shall con- duet his defense.^ Counsel assigned to defend the accused shall have reasonable time within which to understand the case and prepare the defense.^ An attorney appointed by the court to defend one charged with crime is not required to neglect other business of clients by ■wLom he was previously employed in preparing the defense of the accused. He is entitled to reasonable time after discharging such prior duties to prepare defendant's case for trial.^ §2891. Counsel appointed without compensation. — An attorney ap- pointed by the court to defend a person under indictment for crime can not recover compensation for his services from the county in >I11. Rev. Stat. 1874, 410, ch. 38, 966; S. v. Ferris, 16 La. 425; S. v. § 422; North v. P., 139 111. 98, 28 Simpson, 38 La. 23. N. B. 966. "North v. P., 139 111. 97, 28 N. E. ' North V. P., 139 111. 98, 28 N. B. 966. (754) ^ 2892 couET ; attorney. . 755 which the prosecution was conducted; and the court has power to compel an attorney, as one of its officers, to defend a prisoner who is unable to employ counsel.* Article II. Private Counsel foe State. § 2892. Private counsel assisting prosecution. — Attorneys employed by private parties ought not to be permitted to aid the district attor- ney conducting the trial of a case for the prosecution.'' But the prac- tice in some jurisdictions of allowing the district or state's attorney to have the assistance of associate counsel in the trial of criminal cases can not be assigned as error.' Article III. Privileged Communications. § 2893. Privileged communication — ^When not. — If a party con- sults an attorney and obtains advice on a matter which afterwards turns out to be the commission of a crime or fraud, the party so con- sulting the attorney has no privilege whatever to close the lips of the attorney from stating the truth.'' Article IV. Disbarment; Striking from Roll. § 2894. Power to disbar attorneys. — The power to disbar attor- neys is possessed by all courts which have authority to admit them to practice. But the power can only be exercised where there has been such conduct on the part of the attorney complained of as shows him to be unfit to be a member of the profession. Before a judg- ment disbarring an attorney is rendered he should have notice of the grounds of complaint against him and ample opportunity of explana- tion and defense.' •Vise v. County of Hamilton, 19 Thacker, 108 Mich. 652, 66 N. "W. 111. 78. See also Dixon v. P., 168 562. Contra, Burkhard v. S., 18 Tex. 111. 193, 48 N. E. 108. App. 618; S. v. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189; = Biemel v. S., 71 Wis. 444, 7 Am. Bennylield v. Com., 13 Ky. L. 446, C. R. 562, 37 N. W. 244; S. v. Orrick, 17 S. W. 271; S. v. Bartlett, 55 Me. 106 Mo. Ill, 17 S. W. 176, 329; Com. 200; Gardner v. S., 55 N. J. L. 17, V. Knapp, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 477; 26 Atl. 30; Gandy v. S., 27 Neb. 707, Com. V. Williams, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 43 N. W. 747, 44 N. W. 108. 582; Carlisle v. S., 73 Miss. 387, 19 ° S. v. Fitzgerald, 49 Iowa 260, 3 So. 207; Com. v. King, 8 Gray Am. C. R. 1. Contra, Meister v. P., (Mass.) 501; S. v. Grafton, 89 Iowa 31 Mich. 99, 1 Am. C. R. 92-97. 109, 56 N. W. 257; P. v. Wood, 99 'Queen v. Cox, 14 Q. B. D. 153, 5 Mich. 620, 58 N. W. 638; S. v. How- Am. C. R. 149. ard, 118 Mo. 127, 24 S. W. 41; P. v. »Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. (U. 756 .hughes' criminal law. § 2895 § 2895. Striking attorney from roll. — An information charging an attorney with malconduct in office, filed for the purpose of having his name stricken from the roll, is a civil proceeding, and need not be carried on in the name of the people, nor conclude against the peace and dignity of the same.* § 2896. Suspending attorney from practice. — The statute empow- ering a judge of the circuit court to suspend an attorney from practice for malconduct extends only to the court over which he presides; he is not authorized to suspend such attorney in the entire judicial cir- cuit, composed of several counties.^" § 2897. Grounds for disbarment. — ^Where an attorney is guilty of "malconduct in his office," as an attorney, by fraudulent conduct toward his client, or has been convicted of a felony, he will be dis- barred.^^ The fact that an information for disbarment charges that the accused is guilty of a crime and that he has been indicted there- for, is not sufficient to warrant the filing of the information where the indictment for such crime is pending for trial. ^^ When a lawyer in- duces a court to enter an order allowing an appeal bond with sureties whom he knows to be worthless or fictitious persons, he practices a fraud upon the court, and for such misconduct may be disbarred.^' Article V. Court, What Constitutes. § 2898. Court defined. — The court, for some purposes, consists not merely of a judge, but also of a clerk, a sheriff, a state's attorney and jury.^ Article VI. Authority of Judge. § 2899. Authority of judge. — Where a judge assumes to act under lawful authority, and there is color of authority, his acts will not be void, and if a party voluntarily goes to trial without objection, an S.) 505, 2 Green C. R. 139; Beene v. George, 186 111. 122, 57 N. E. 804; V. S., 22 Ark. 157; P. v. Turner, 1 P. v. Schintz, 181 111. 574, 54 N. E. Cal. 143; Ex parte Heyfron, 7 How. 1011; P. v. Hill, 182 111. 428, 55 N. (Miss.) 127. E. 542; P. v. Salomon, 184 111. 490, ° P. V. Montray, 166 IlL 632, 47 N. 56 N. E. 815. E. 79. "P. V. Comstock, 176 111. 192, 52 '° Montray v. P., 162 111. 199, 44 N. E. 67. N. E. 496. See Winkelman v. P., »P. v. Pickler, 186 IlL 64, 57 N. 50 111. 45L E. 893. » P. V. Murphy, 119 111. 160, 6 N. ' Harris v. P., 128 111. 592, 21 N. E. E. 488; P. V. Palmer, 61 lU. 255; P. 563. 4 2900 COURT ; attorney. 757 objection after conviction comes too late to be of any avail. This is in harmony with the great weight of authority.^ § 2900. Judge has no authority after adjournment. — When the court adjourns, the judge carries no powers with him to his lodgings, and any directions to the jury from him are improper.* § 2901. Judge can not try felony case. — The judge of the court has no jurisdiction to try a felony ease by the -defendant waiving a jury.* § 2902. Judge leaving bench during trial; — The presiding judge left the court room during the argument of counsel and out of hearing of such argument; objections were interposed to some statements of counsel for the people, which were not passed upon, as appears in the record. Held on review to be reversible error. The parties can not even consent to the absence of the judge.^ The judge can not vacate the bench and permit a member of the bar to try a case, even with the consent of the parties to the cause; and any judgments entered on a trial by such agreement by a member of the bar will be a nullity.® § 2903. Criminal cases for certain terms. — The court has power under the statute to enter an order that certain terms of the court shall be devoted only to civil cases and the grand jury, therefore, dis- pensed with, and that at certain other terms only criminal eases and the people's docket shall be called for trial.'' Article VII. Adjournment; Terms. §2904. Adjournment — Adjourned term. — In the absence of the judge, court may be adjourned from day to day, by the sheriff or his deputy, as provided by statute.* Where an adjourned term is held under color of authority, it will be presumed that it was properly or- dered and held.® ^Smurr v. S., 105 Ind. 125, 4 N. "Cobb v. P., 84 111. 512; Hoagland E. 445, 7 Am. C. R. 553; Com. v. v. Creed, 81 111. -507; Bishop v. Nel- Hawkes, 123 Mass. 525. son, 83 111. 601. = Rafeerty v. P., 72 111. 47; Sargent 'Petty v. P., 118 111. 154, 8 N. B. V. Roberts, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 337. 304. 'Harris v. P., 128 111. 589, 21 N. ^Bressler v. P., 117 111. 429, 8 N. B. 563. See "Jury, Jurors;" "Juris- E. 62. diction." » Smurr v. S., 105 Ind. 125, 4 N. "Thompson v. P., 144 111. 380, 32 E. 445, 7 Am. C. R. 550; Cook v. N. B. 968; Meredeth v. P., 84 111. Skelton. 20 111. 107. 480. 758 '' hughes' criminal law. § 2905 § 2905. Terms presumed held. — The court can not judicially know- that a regular term was not held, or that a special term had been called, and held in any circuit.^" Article VIII.^ Branches of Court. § 2906. Jurisdiction, when several branches. — Where there are several branches of the same court, each branch, so far as its jurisdic- tion to try a particular cause is concerned, and to hear and determine the cause in which it is engaged, must be regarded as an independent court, separate and distinct from other branches of the court, as if it were in a separate jurisdiction.^^ Article IX. Justice op Peace Court. § 2907. Powers of justice of peace. — The powers and duties of jus- tices of the peace, and their jurisdiction, are specially conferred by statute, and they can exercise no authority not thus given. In cases of felony they have no power to try the party, in any legal sense, but can only examine and in proper cases hold to bail or commit in de- fault of bail." § 2908. Justice of peace — Jurisdiction. — The legislature has no power to confer exclusive jurisdiction on justice of the peace courts in misdemeanor eases. ^^ § 2909. Justice jurisdiction — ^Included offense. — Where a com- plaint before a justice of the peace charged an assault with a deadly weapon, it will support a warrant issued on such complaint for an as- sault and battery, the latter being included in the complaint; and the justice will have jurisdiction to try the charge of assault and battery,, though the charge in the complaint is an indictable offense.^* § 2910. Appeal allowed from justice. — If judgment for costs be entered against the complaining witness for commencing a case ma- liciously and without probable cause, in a justice court, such witness may appeal from such judgment.^"* '"Norfolk V. P., 43 111. 11. "Wilson v. P., 94 111. 426. " P. V. Matson, 129 111. 596, 22 N. " Severin v. P., 37 111. 414. B. 456. "Berman v. P., 101 111. 322. ^ S. V. Morgan, 62 Ind. 35, 3 Am. C. R. 152. CHAPTEE LXXXII. JUKYj JUEOBS. Art. I. Drawing Jury, §§ 2911-2914 II. Filling the Panel, §§ 2915-2918 III. Challenge to Array, §§ 2919-2925 IV. Challenge for Cause, §§ 2926-2931 V. Peremptory Challenge, §§ 2932-2943 VI. Opinions which Disqualify, ....§§ 2944-2953 VII. . Opinions which do not Disqualify, . . §§ 2954-2963 VIII. Juror's Privilege; Age, § 2964 IX. Swearing Jury; Oath, §§ 2965-2967 X. Officer in Charge, Sworn, ....§§ 2968-2969 XI. Jurors Separating, §§ 2970-2975 XII. Impeaching Juror, § 2976 XIII. "Waiving Disqualification, ....§§ 2977-2978 XIV. Waiving Trial by Jury, §§ 2979-2981 XV. Errors in Selecting Jury, ....§§ 3982-2984 XVI. Court Judge of Law, § 2985 XVII. Jury Judges of Law and Fact, . . §§ 2986-2987 XVIII. Statute Constitutional, § 2988 XIX. Discharging Jury, §§ 2989-2990 XX. Scope of Federal Statutes, .... § 2991 Article I. Drawing Jury. § 2911. Drawing jury — ^Harmless irregularities. — Before any ir- regularjties in filling the panel of jurors, by reason of a departure from the statutory mode, can avail the defendant anything, it must appear his rights were affected and that he was prejudiced by such irregularities.^ ^Mapes v. P., 69 111. 529; Ferris 72 111. 471; Goodhue v. P., 94 111. 37; V. P., 35 N. Y. 125; Wilhelm v. P., P. v. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N. W. (759) 7G0 hughes' criminal law. § 2912 § 2S12. Filling panel of jurors. — When the time arrives for the service of particular persons, as jurors, and some are absent, their places may be iilled by others, as provided by statute, and any person who has previously served during the same term may be selected for that purpose.^ § 2913. Drawing additional jurors. — On the regular panel of jurors becoming exhausted, the court ordered the clerk to draw one hundred additional jurors from the jury box, instead of directing the sheriff to summon a sufficient number of persons to fill such panel as re- manufacture or sell it ; has no sympathy for a man in that business ;; it is a curse to the community ; bitterly opposed to it ; his feeling is tO' have the thing stopped. Held disqualified.^* § 2949. Decided opinion disqualifies. — It has been repeatedly held that if a juror has a decided opinion respecting the merits of the con- troversy, either from a personal knowledge of the facts, from the statements of witnesses, from the relation of the parties, or from rumor, he is disqualified from trying the case if challenged for cause.'"'* Where a juror stated that he had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused from statements which he had heard re- garding the case, and which he believed to be true, he was held dis- qualified."* § 2950. Opinion from reading accounts — ^Disqualified. — ^A juror, having formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused entirely from reading reports of the testimony of the witnesses of the transactions as published in the newspapers, is incompetent, although he said on his examination, under oath, that he could, notwithstand- ing such opinion, render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence.^' Gratt. (Va.) 941; U. S. v. Wilson, Am. C. R. 262; S. v. Punshon, 133 Bald. (U. S.) 85; P. v. Pultz, 109 Mo. 44, 34 S. W. 25; McGuire v. Cal. 258, 41 Pac. 1040; P. v. Thacker, S., 76 Miss. 504, 25 So. 495. 108 Mich. 652, 66 N. W. 562; P. v. ""Neely v. P., 13 111. 687; Gardner Miller, 125 Cal. 44, 57 Pac. 770; P. v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 87; Baxter v. P., V. Wilmarth, 156 N. Y. 566, 51 N. E. 3 Gilm. (111.) 377; S. v. Brown, 15 277. Kan. 400, 2 Am. C. R. 423. ==Carrow v. P., 113 111. 550. See "Frazier v. S., 23 Ohio St. 551, 2 P. V. Decker, 157 N. Y. 186, 51 N. Green C. R. 548; S. v. Rutten, 13 E. 1018. Wash. 203, 43 Pac. 30. See S. v. "Albrecht v. Walker, 73 111. 72. Ekanger, 8 N. D. 559, 80 N. W. 482. Compare Thiede v. Utah Ter., 159 Contra, Com. v. Eagan, 190 Pa. St. TJ. S. 510, 16 S. Ct. 62; P. v. O'Neill, 10, 42 Atl. 374; Hardin v. S., 66 107 Mich. 556, 65 N. W. 540. Ark. 53, 48 S. W. 904; S. v. Willis, "» Collins V. P., 48 111. 147; P. v. 71 Conn. 293, 41 Atl. 820; P. v. Johnston, 46 Cal. 78, 2 Green C. R. Owens, 123 Cal. 482, 56 Pac. 251. 427; Erwin v. S., 29 Ohio St. 186, 2 hughes' c. l. — 49 770 hughes' criminal law. § 2951 §2951. Read and believed statements — Disqualified. — A juror having stated that he had read the newspaper statements about the case, and that he believed the statements ; that one of the persons men- tioned in the newspaper may have been the defendant, is disqualified."^ A juror, having read a newspaper account of a previous trial of the prisoners upon the same indictment and formed an opinion at the time that the prisoners were guilty ; that he had expressed that opin- ion, and that it had not been changed since, is disqualified.'" § 2952. Fixed opinion on material element. — If a juror has a fixed opinion on a material element in the case — "one of the main issues involved in the ease" — ^he is disqualified.*" §2953. Statutory provision on opinion. — Notwithstanding the statutory provision, a person who has formed or expressed an opinion or impression in reference to the guilt or innocence of the defendant is still, as formerly, disqualified as a juror, unless three things shall concur: (1) He must declare on oath that he believes that such opinion or impression will not infiuence his verdict; (2) he must also declare on oath that he believes he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence, and (3) the court must be satisfied.that he does not entertain such a present opinion or impression as would in- fluence his verdict. Unless these three things concur, the person must now, as before, be excluded from the jury box.^^ Section 14 of ■chapter 78, Illinois statutes, relating to jurors, can not be construed or regarded as changing in any degree the essential qualifications which jurors must possess, as announced in the case of Smith v. Eames,^^^ but merelyfurnishes a new test by which those qualifications may be determined. It simply makes the statement of the juror com- petent evidence to be considered by the court. His answer, that, notwithstanding his opinions, formed from newspaper statements or rumors, he can and will try the case fairly and impartially, does not ""Gray v. P., 26 111. 347; Smith Coughlln v. P., 144 III. 183, 33 N. V. Evans, 3 Scam. (111.) 81; Gardner E. 1. See S. v. Otto, 61 Kan. 58, 58 V. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 83; S. v. Gleim, Pac. 995. 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998. ""P. v. Casey, 96 N. Y. 115, 4 Am. "•P. v. Brotherton, 43 Cal. 530, 1 C. R. 314; P. v. Wllmartli, 156 N. Green C. R. 739; Ward v. S., 102 Y. 566, 51 N. E. 277; Thompson v. Tenn. 724, 52 S. W. 996; S. v. Start, P., 26 Colo. 496, 59 Pac. 51. The 60 Kan. 256, 56 Pac. 15. See S. v. statutes of New York and Illinois Savage, 36 Or. 191, 60 Pac. 610, 61 are substantially the same. Pac. 1128. «'a3 Scam. (111.) 76. » Davis V. "Walker, 60 111. 452; § 2954 JURY, JUKORS. 771 qualify him. The court must be satisfied of its truth.*^ Under the statute of New York, the court holds that, notwithstanding a juror has formed, expressed and still entertains an opinion upon the merits, which it will require evidence to remove, yet, if he declares on his oath that he believes, and the court finds that he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence, he is a competent juror."* Akticle VII. Opinions which do not Disqualify. §2954. Conversed, but no opinion — Opinion once. — ^A juror is qualified, although he has conversed with a witness and believed what he heard, if he had not formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused."* A juror who had formed some opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, about the time of the homicide, from reading the newspapers, but stated on his examination as a juror he had then no opinion as to such guilt or innocence, is competent."* § 2955. Hj^othetical opinion, not disqualifying. — A mere hypo- thetical opinion formed from the reading of newspapers will not dis- qualify a juror, he not having heard what purports to be a statement of the facts."" §2956. Opinion, not positive. — Though a juror has an opinion based on rumor or newspaper statement, but not a positive one, he is not disqualified if he states that he can try the case by the law and the evidence, without regard to what he may have heard." •'Coughlin v. P., 144 111. 182, 33 919, 2 Green C. R. 650; S. v. Shackel- N. B. 1. See also Goins v. S., 46 ford, 148 Mo. 493, 50 S. W. 105; S. Ohio St. 457, 21 N. E. 476, 8 Am. C. v. Bronstine, 147 Mo. 520, 49 S. W. R. 23; S. v. Meyer, 58 Vt. 457, 3 Atl. 512; Morrison v. S., 40 Tex. Or. 473, 195, 7 Am. C. R. 430; P. v. Casey, 51 S. W. 358; S. v. Kelly, 28 Or. 225, 96 N. Y. 115, 4 Am. C. R. 314; S. v. 42 Pac. 217; Givens v. S., 103 Tenn. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 Atl. 831, 648, 55 S. W. 1107; Hughes v. S. 10 Am. C. R. 391. (Wis.), 85 N. W. 333; Dinsmore v.. ™S. V. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 445. Atl. 831, 10 Am. C. R. 391; S. v. "'Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 N. E. Brown, 28 Or. 147, 41 Pac. 1042; 865, 17 N. E. 898, 6 Am. C. R. 570; P. V. Willson, 109 N. Y. 345, 16 N. S. v. Weems, 96 Iowa 426, 65 N. W. E. 540; P. V. Buddensieck, 103 N. 387, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 565; S. v. Cun- Y. 487, 9 N. E. 44. Many cases are ningham, 100 Mo. 382, 8 Am. C. R. cited and reviewed in the Sawtelle 670, 12 S. W. 376; Weston v. Com., case, as to qualification of jurors. Ill Pa. St. 251, 6 Am. C. R. 460, 2 "Thompson v. P., 24 111. 61. Atl. 191; S. v. Sawtelle, 66 N. '= Cluck V. S., 40 Ind. 263, 1 Green H. 488, 32 Atl. 831; S. v. Taylor, 134 C. R. 735; S. v. Yetzer, 97 Iowa 423, Mo. 109, 35 S. W. 92; Bohanan v. 66 N. W. 737; S. v. Harras, 22 Wash. S., 18 Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 6 Am. 57, 60 Pac. 58. C. R. 503; S. v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483, 3 "Jackson v. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) Am. C. R. 165; S. v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 772 hughes' criminal law. § 2957 § 2957. Hearing facts no disqualification. — One who was present as a spectator and heard the evidence in one case was not for that reason alone disqualified by intendment of law from serving as a juror in the next case on substantially the same issue.** § 2958. Examination shows competency. — On examination the juror said: "I believed the man had been murdered, and that the defendant did it. It would take some evidence or explanation to re- move the opinion from my mind. I know nothing about the case except what I have heard from rumor and from the newspapers. I believe I can sit and decide the ease with the same impartiality as if 1 had never heard of the case." Held to be a competent juror."' § 2959. Belonging to detective association. — The fact that a petit juror belongs to an association whose object is to detect crime, as the crime of stealing horses, raises no presumption that he is prejudiced against the accused.''" § 2960. Grand juror incompetent. — A member of the grand jury which found the indictment is incompetent to try the accused, and may be challenged for cause.''^ § 2961. Examinations prove incompetency. — The examinations of jurors in the following cases are set out in full in the opinions of the court and the jurors were held incompetent :^^ § 2962. Court's improper examination. — Persuasive, coaxing, lec- turing questions put to a juror by the court in such a way as to induce the juror to say he can and will try the case fairly and impartially, 518; S. V. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 238; S. "Mustek v. P., 40 111. 272. See S. V. Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Green C. v. Moore, 48 La. 380, 19 So. 285; R. 229; S. v. Collins, 70 N. C. 241, S. v. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, 29 Pac. 2 Green C. R. 740; P. v. Murphy, 45 571. Gal. 137, 2 Green C. R. 414; Adams "Williams v. S., 109 Ala. 64, 19 V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 285, 33 S. W. 354; So. 530. Brown v. S., 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63. " P. v. Casey, 96 N. Y. 115, 4 Am. "S. V. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 C. R. 314; Coughlin v. P., 144 111. Atl. 831. See Cunneen v. S., 96 Ga. 167, 182, 33 N. B. 1; Staup v. Com., 406, 23 S. E. 412; S. v. Philpot, 97 74 Pa. St. 458, 2 Green C. R. 520. See Iowa 365, 66 N. W. 730. , Leach v. P., 53 111. 311; P. v. Broth- ""S. V. Lawrence, 38 Iowa 51; S. erton, 47 Cal. 388, 2 Green C. R. V. Hudson, 110 Iowa 663, 80 N. W. 445. 232. i 2963 JURY, JUEORS. 773 when it is apparent from his answers that he has a fixed opinion as to the guilt of the accused, and that he is prejudiced, are improper and eondemned.'^ § 2963. Defendant's right to disqualified juror.— The defendant in a criminal cause has a right to accept a juror who has expressed an opinion or is prejudiced, and the court can not on its own motion re- fuse to permit such juror to be sworn.''* Article VIII. Jueok's Privilege; Age. § 2964. Exemption no disqualification. — The fact that a juror is exempt from jury service, by reason of his age or otherwise, is no cause for challenge, but such juror may claim his privilege by reason of such exemption.'' Article IX. Swearing Jury; Oath. § 2965. Swearing jury — Becord entry. — Eelating to the swearing of the jury, the record contained the following entry : "A jury came (naming them), twelve good and lawful men having the qualifica- tions of jurors, who, being elected, tried and sworn well and truly to try the issue joined herein pending the introduction of testimony." Held that these recitals are not to be regarded as an attempt to set out the oath actually administered, but rather as a statement of the fact that the jury had been sworn as required by law.''° § 2966. Swearing jury — Form of oath. — The form of the oath for jurors, as prescribed by statute, should be followed. The substance of the oath can not be dispensed with.''' The common law form of oath for swearing the jury in England is as follows: "Well and "Coughlin y. P., 144 111. 184, 33 "S. v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12 Pac. N. E. 1. 318, 7 Am. C. R. 379; Washington "Van Blaricum v. P., 16 111. 364. v. S., 60 Ala. 10, 3 Am. C. R. 178; S. See Stone v. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 326; v. Angelo, 18 Nev. 425, 4 Pac. 1080, P. V. Decker, 157 N. Y. 186, 51 N. 5 Am. C. R. 64; Dyson v. S., 26 Miss. E. 1018. 362; Bartlett v. S., 28 Ohio St. 669. " P. V. Owens, 123 Cal. 482, 56 " S. v. Angelo, 18 Nev. 425, 4 Pac. Pac. 251; Davison v. P., 90 111. 225 1080, 5 Am. C. R. 62; Johnson v. S., (age); Chase v. P., 40 111. 357; 47 Ala. 9, 1 Green C. R. 599; S. v. Brown v. S., 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63. Owen, 72 N. C. 611; S. v. Rollins, See also Murphy v. P., 37 111. 456; 22 N. H. 528; Edwards v. S., 49 Ala. Patterson v. S., 48 N. J. L. 381, 4 336; Morgan v. S., 42 Tex. 224; Atl. 449, 7 Am. C. R. 311; Stone v. Maher v. S., 3 Minn. 444. P., 2 Scam. (111.) 336. See Guykow- ski v. P., 1 Scam. (111.) 480. 774 hughes' ckiminal law. § 2967 truly to try and a true deliverance make between our sovereign lord the king and the prisoner whom they have in charge, and a true ver- dict to give according to the evidence."'* § 2967. Jury to be sworn in each case. — Swearing the jury at the commencement of the term to try all causes that might be submitted to it is not the practice. The jury selected in each particular case should be sworn.''* Article X. Officer in Charge, Sworn". § 2968. Officer attending jury, not sworn. — The statutory pro- vision that "when the jury shall retire to consider of their verdict in any criminal case, a constable or other officer shall be sworn to attend the jury until they shall have agreed upon their verdict," is manda- tory and can not be dispensed with. The failure to swear the officer who attended the jury is reversible error.*" Permitting the jury, after they were impaneled in the case, and before they retire to consider of their verdict, to be in charge of an unsworn officer, is error, though perhaps not reversible in cases not capital.*^ But if the defendant does not object that the officer attending the jury was not sworn, as required, the irregularity is waived.*^ Swearing the officer before the time to attend the jury during their consideration of their verdict, instead of at the time the jury retires, though irregular, is not ma- terial.*^ § 2969. Disqualified officer — ^Minor as officer. — If a witness who testified to material facts in a case be selected to take charge of the jury, and he be present during the time the jury are deliberating on the verdict, this, of itself, is reversible error.** A person less than twenty-one years of age is not for that reason disqualified to take charge of a jury.*^ " 4 Bl. Com. 355. ^ Sanders v. P., 124 111. 224, 16 N. ™ Barney v. P., 22 111. 160; Kitter E. 81. V. P.. 25 III. 27. «*Gainey v. P., 97 111. 280; P. v. «» Lewis V. P., 44 111. 454; Mc- Knapp, 42 Mich. 267, 3 N. W. 927; Intyre v. P., 38 111. 518. Cooney v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 281. " Gibbons v. P., 23 111. 468. » McCann v. P., 88 111. 106. «»Dreyer v. P., 188 111. 46, 59 N. E. 424. § 2970 JURY, JURORS. 775 Akticle XI. JuEOEs Separating. § 2970. Permitting^ separation of jury. — The law in capital cases undoubtedly is that from the commencement of the trial till the ren- dition of the verdict, the jury, during all the adjournments of the court, should be placed in charge of a sworn officer, unless it is other- wise ordered by the court with the consent of the accused and the at- torney for the people. A separation of the Jury is such an irregu- larity that the court would be bound to set aside the verdict, unless it was the result of misapprehension, accident or mistake on the part of the jury, and such separation was not prejudicial to the pris- § 2971. Jury separating during trial. — In the United States the practice is to permit the jury to separate during recesses in all cases less than capital, but such is not the practice in England.'^ § 2972. Separation not prejudicial. — Even in capital eases, the separation of the jury without consent, or the mere fact that other persons may speak to them, is not of itself grounds for a new trial or interference with a verdict otherwise right. It must appear that some of the jurors might have been tampered with or improperly in- fluenced to the prejudice of the defendant.*^ § 2974. Separation, when presumed injurious. — After a juror had been sworn and entered upon the discharge of his duties in the trial of a cause, he was permitted to separate himself from the jury and mingle with a crowd of persons by crossing the street, unaccompanied by an officer. It will be presumed that the defendant was injured by this misconduct of the juror, and it is incumbent on the state to rebut this presumption by showing that the juror did not hear any one in the crowd through which he passed express an opinion in relation to the case, and that he did not speak to any one about the case.*' "^ Jumpertz v. P., 21 111. 411; Mc- 257, 58 N. E. 293; S. v. Williams, 149 Kinney v. P., 2 Gilm. (111.) 553; Mo. 496, 51 S. W. 88; Payne v. S., Gibbons V. P., 23 111. 468. 66 Ark. 545, 52 S.- W. 276; S, v. " Sutton V. P., 145 111. 283, 34 N. Dougherty, 55 Mo. 69, 2 Green C. E. 420. R- 610; P. v. Douglass, 4 Cow. (N. =» Reins v. P., 30 111. 273; Marzen Y.) 26. V. P., 190 111. 81, 88; S. v. Harrison, »» Daniel v. S., 56 Ga. 653, 2 Am. 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S. E. 982, 9 Am. C. R. 421. C. E. 627; Gott v. P., 187 111. 249, 776 hughes' criminal law. § 2975 § 2975. Secalling jury after discharge. — After a jury trying a ease has been discharged and separated the court has no power to call them together again ; the case is beyond their control or jurisdiction.'* Article XII. Impeachiistg Jueok. § 2976. Evidence, on impeaching a juror. — ^When an efEort is made on a motion for a new trial to show that a juror had sworn falsely on his voir dire, the evidence must clearly preponderate in establishing the fact." Article XIII. Waiving Disqualification. § 2977. Incompetency of juror waived. — It is well settled that all objections to the competency of a juror are waived by neglecting to exercise due diligence in urging objections at the proper time — after they have come to a party's knowledge.*^ If a disqualification of a juror was known to the defendant or his counsel before he was ac- cepted, it can not be assigned for error after verdict.'^ § 2978. Irregularity waived. — Any irregularity in summoning jurors will be waived if not taken advantage of at the proper time, especially where the party had knowledge of such irregularity.'* Article XIV. Waiving Trial by Jury. § 2979. Waiving a jury, — A jury can not be waived in a felony case — even by agreement or consent of the defendant. It is jurisdic- tional, and consent can never confer jurisdiction.'^ The defendant "Williams v. P., 44 111. 478; Far- 782. See P. v. Oliveria, 127 Cal. ley V. P., 138 111. 100, 27 N. B. 927; 376, 59 Pac. 772; Cornell v. S., 104 Sargent v. S., 11 Ohio 472. Wis. 527, 80 N. W. 745; Com. v. "Davison v. P., 90 111. 227; Cressinger, 193 Pa. St. 326, 44 Atl. Hughes V. P., 116 111. 338, 6 N. E. 433; P. v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1, 79 65; Spies v. P.. 122 111. 264, 12 N. N. W. 944; Carter v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. E. 865, 17 N. B. 898. 345, 46 S. W. 236, 48 S. W. 508; S. '-Adams v. S., 99 Ind. 244, 4 Am. v. Minor, 106 Iowa 642, 77 N. W. C. R. 311; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 946; 330. P. v. Evans, 124 Cal. 206, 56 Pac. »» Harris v. P., 128 111. 589, 21 N. 1024; S. V. Burke, 107 Iowa 659, 78 B. 563; Morgan v. P., 136 111. 161, N. W. 677. See Givens v. S., 103 26 N. E. 651; S. v. Simons, 61 Kan. Tenn. 648, 55 S. W. 1107 (minor). 752, 60 Pac. 1052; 4 Bl. Com. 349; "Mackin v. P., 115 111. 330, 3 N. S. v. Lockwood, 43 Wis. 403; S. v. E. 222; Fitzpatrick v. P., 98 111. Davis, 66 Mo. 684; Cancemi v. P., 274. 18 N. Y. 128; Hill v. P., 16 Mich. "S. V. Jones, 52 La. 211, 26 So. 351; Allen v. S., 54 Ind. 461, 2 Am. § 2980 JURY, JURORS. 777. may waive his right to a jury trial in a prosecution for a misde- meanor, and be tried by the court instead of a jury, where such waiver has been authorized by statute; and the courts have upheld the constitutionality of statutes providing for such waiver in mis- demeanor cases."" § 2980. Statute on waiving jury. — A statute permitting a waiver - of the right of trial by jury in misdemeanor and petty cases is valid and not unconstitutional.®' § 2981. Demand for jury trial. — A failure of a party accused of a criminal offense to demand a jury trial in a justice court is not a waiver of such right."* Article XV. Errors in Selecting Jury. § 2982. Ruling on competency, reviewable. — The conclusion of the trial court as to the competency of a juror is not final, but may be reviewed on error assigned.®" § 2983. Ruling on competency, when not reviewable. — When it appears that a fair and impartial jury was obtained it is a general rule that any error of the court in allowing a challenge and permitting a juror to be excused is not subject to review.^"" The supreme court C. R. 442; S. v. Stewart, 89 N. C. League v. S., 36 Md. 257; Connelly 563, 4 Am. C. R. Ill; Williams v. v. S., 60 Ala. 89; S. v. Worden, 46 S., 12 Ohio St. 622; P. v. Lennox, 67 Conn. 349. See S. v. Tucker, 96 Cal. 113, 7 Pac. 260; Cooley Const. Iowa 276, 65 N. W. 152. Lim. 319; S. v. Ellis, 22 Wash. 129, "Lancaster v. S., 90 Md. 211, 44 60 Pac. 136. See §2560. The above Atl. 1039; Brewster v. P., 183 111. authorities cover the question of 143, 55 N. E. 640. See S. v. Jack- trial with less than twelve jurors son, 69 N. H. 511, 43 Atl. 749. also. Contra, In re Staff, 63 Wis. »" Banner v. S., 89 Md. 220, 42 Atl. 285, 23 N. W. 587, 6 Am. C. R. 141; 965. S. V. Kaufman, 51 Iowa 578, 2 N. W. == Coughlin v. P., 144 111. 186, 33 275. N. E. 1; Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. ""Brewster v. P., 183 111. 143, 152, Schueller, 60 111. 465; Plummer v. 55 N. B. 640; Edwards v. S., 45 N. P., 74 111. 361; Wilson v. P., 94 111. J. L. 419; Ward v. P., 30 Mich. 116; 299; Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 N. E. In re Staff, 63 Wis. 285, 23 N. W. 865, 17 N. E. 898. Contra, S. v. Kin- 587; George v. P., 167 111. 417, 47 sauls, 126 N. C. 1095, 36 S. E. 31; N. B. 741; S. v. Ill, 74 Iowa 441, 38 S. v. Feldman, 80 Minn. 314, 83 N. N. W. 143; S. V. Robinson, 43 La. W. 182. 383, 8 So. 937; S. v. Maine, 27 Conn. ""P. v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, 48 281; Opinion of Justices, 41 N. H. Pac. 75, 10 Am. C. R. 514; Richards 551; Murphy v. S., 97 Ind. 579; Har- v. S., 36 Neb. 17, 53 N. W. 1027; S. ris V. P., 128 111. 585, 21 N. E. 563; v. Ward, 39 Vt. 225; Ter. v. Roberts, 778 hughes' criminal law. § 2984 of California has repeatedly held, under a statute similar to the stat- ute of Nevada, that the allowance of a challenge of a juror for implied bias, is not the subject of an exception.^ § 2984. Practice, on challenging. — ^In the absence of statutory regulation or a general rule of court, it is within the discretion of the court to determine the order in which the right to challenge shall be exercised, by the prosecution or defense, and no exception lies to the exercise of that discretion.^ Article XVI. Court Judge of Law. § 2985. Court judge of law. — The doctrine that jurors are judges of the common law is contrary to the great preponderance of au- thority in this country.* It is the duty of the court to declare the law in criminal as well as civil cases, and the jury has no right in either class of cases to render a verdict in disregard to the law so de- clared and by which their judgment should be controlled.* Article XYII. Jury Judges of Law and Fact. § 2986. Jury judges of law. — Where, by statute, the jury are made the judges of the law as well as the facts of a case, they are not bound by the law as "laid down" and given them by the court in the form of instructions, if they can say on oath that they believe they know the law better than the court.^ § 2987. Jury judges of witnesses and facts. — Where there is a con- flict in the testimony of the witnesses, it is for the jury to determine to whom they will give credence ; they are the judges of the credibility 9 Mont. 12, 22 Pac. 132; S. v. Ching 412; Saflord v. P., 1 Park. Cr. (N. Ling, 16 Or. 419, 18 Pac. 844; Wat- Y.) 474; Nicholson v. Com., 96 Pa. son V. S., 63 Ind. 548; S. v. McKln- St. 503; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2132; ney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 Pac. 356, 5 Am. Cooley Const. Lim. (5tli ed.), 324. C. R. 542. *S. V. Rheams, 34 Minn. 18, 24 'S. V. Hing, 16 Nev. 307, 4 Am. N. W. 302, 6 Am. C. R. 541; Duffy C. R. 376; P. v. Atherton, 51 Cal. v. P., 26 N. Y. 588; Com. v. Rock, 495. 10 Gray (Mass.) 4; 1 Greenl. Ev., 'Patterson v. S., 48 N. J. L. 381, § 49; Lord v. S., 16 N. H. 325. 4 Atl. 449, 7 Am. C. R. 310; Schufflin "Fisher v. P., 23 111. 231; Wohl- V. S., 20 Ohio St. 233. ford v. P., 148 111. 300, 36 N. E. 107; = S. v. Burpee, 65 Vt. 1, 25 Atl. 964, Beard v. S., 71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. 1044, 9 Am. C. R. 555; McDonald v. S.. 8 Am. C. R. 177; McDonald v. S., 63 Ind. 544, 3 Am. C. R. 300; Ham- 63 Ind. 544, 3 Am. C. R. 301; Mul- ilton V. P., 29 Mich. 173, 1 Am. C. linlx v. P., 76 111. 212. R. 631; Adams v. S., 29 Ohio St. § 2988 JUEY, JURORS. 779 Qf the .witnesses, including the defendant.^ By the common law the jury are the judges of the facts in criminal as well as civil cases, and the court the judge of the law.'' The jury, in determining the facts, must be governed by the evidence. They have no right to act on any belief which is not produced wholly from the evidence.* Aetjclb XVIII. Statute Constitutional. § 2988. Statute on examination valid. — The statute of Illinois per- mitting a juror to testify touching his competency and qualifications as a juror, — that notwithstanding he has formed an opinion based on rumor or newspaper statements (about the truth of which he has ex- pressed no opinion), he can still give a fair and impartial trial, — is constitutional.* Article XIX. Discharging Jury. § 2989. Juror engaged in another case. — If a juror is engaged in the trial of another case the defendant can not insist as a matter of right in drawing him; the court may set aside the name of such juror and proceed with other jurors not so engaged.^" § 2990. Sick juror may be excused. — A juror of the regular panel may, for good cause shown, such as illness or the like, be excused by the court, in the absence of the accused and without his knowledge or consent.^^ The sickness of a juror is ground to discharge the jury, •Peeples v. McKee, 92 111. 397; ' Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 417, 55 N. B. S. Ct. 273, 10 Am. C. R. 180. 519; Rogers v. P., 98 111. 583; Hig- » Graff v. P., 134 111. 382, 25 N. E. gins V. P., 98 111. 521; Connaghan 563. V. P., 88 111. 461; Spahn v. P., 137 •Coughlin v. P., 144 111. 180, 33 111. 543, 27 N. B. 688; S. v. Philpot, N. B. 1; Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 97 Iowa 365, 66 N. W. 730. See N. B. 865, 17 N. E. 898; Spies v. Illi- "Witnesses." P. v. Willard, 92 Gal. nois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 S. Gt. 21. 482, 28 Pac. 585; S. v. Lucas, 24 Or. "Prater v. S., 107 Ala. 26, 18 So. 168, 33 Pac. 538; S. v. Jacobs, 106 238; Dorsey v. S., 107 Ala. 157, 18 N. C. 695, 10 S. B. 1031; P. v. Nino, So. 199. See Handy v. S., 121 Ala. 149 N. Y. 317, 43 N. E. 853; S. v. 13, 25 So. 1023; S. v. Campbell, 35 Mecum, 95 Iowa 433, 64 N. W. 286; S. G. 2g, 14 S. E. 292; Thurmond v. Hickory v. U. S., 160 U. S. 408, 16 S. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 422, 35 S. W. 965. Ct. 327; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 276; "Thomas v. S., 125 Ala. 45, 27 S. v. Aughtry, 49 S. C. 285, 26 S. So. 315; Beard v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 E. 619, 27 S. B. 199; Williams v. S. W. 348. See West v. S. (Fla.), S., 46 Neb. 704, 65 N. W. 783. 28 So. 430. 780 hughes' criminal law. § 2991 without jeopardy intervening, and for any other legal cause the jury may be discharged.^^ Article XX. Scope of Federal Statutes. § 2991. Federal statutes includes territories. — The provisions of the federal constitution relating to the right of trial by jury in crim- inal causes include the territories of the United States.^^ "Whar. Cr. PI. & Pr. (8th ed.), "Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. § 514; Thompson v. U. S., 155 U. 343, 18 S. Ct. 620. S. 271, 9 Am. C. R. 212, 15 S. Ct. 73. See "Jeopardy." CHAPTEE LXXXIII. WITNESSES. Art. I. Competency, §§ 2992-3016 II. Credibility, § 3017 III. Sustaining Witness, §§ 3018-3020 IV. Impeaching Witness, §§ 3021-3037 V. Opinions of Witness, §§ 3038-3040 VI. Privileges of Witness, §§ 3041-3046 VII. Additional Witnesses, §§ 3047-3048 VIII. Excluding Witnesses, § 3049 IX. Witness Pees, §§ 3050-3053 X. Examination of Witnesses, . . §§ 3053-3057 XI. Cross-Examination, §§ 3058-3073 XII. Evidence of Dead Witness, .... § 3073 XIII. Expert Witness, §§ 3074^3079 XIV. Non-Experts, §§ 3080-3082 Article I. Competency. § 2992. Accomplice as witness — Co-defendant.— By the common law an accomplice not joined in the indictment is a competent witness for the prisoner, with whom he himself committed the crime.^ An accomplice can not testify in favor of one jointly indicted while the indictment is pending against him. The criminal charge against him must be finally disposed of before he can testify for a co-defend- ant.^ One of two or more joint defendants can not be a witness for "Gray v. P., 26 111. 347; 4 Bl. Com. Williams v. S., 41 Fla. 295, 27 So. 267; Myers v. P., 26 111. 176. See 898. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 70; Staup v. "^ Underbill Cr. Ev., § 70, citing Com., 74 Pa. St. 458, 2 Green C. R. Collier v. S., 20 Ark. 36; S. v. Dun- 523. See generally Brooks v. S. lop, 65 N. C. 288; Ballard v. S., 31 (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 924; Wolfron v. Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Moss v. S., 17 U. S., 101 Fed. 430, 102 Fed. 134; Ark. 327. (781) 782 hughes' criminal law, § 2993 or against another, even on a separate trial, until the case as to himself is disposed of by a plea of guilty or a verdict of conviction or acquittal or a discharge on a plea in abatement. Then he may be. If the in- dictments are separate he may be a witness, though the offense is sup- ' posed to be joint.^ § 2993. Accomplice — ^Weight of his testimony. — Whilst a defend- ant may be convicted on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice, yet where the testimony of that accomplice is impeached by his own sworn evidence at another time it must be weighed with extreme caution.* § 2994. Detective not accomplice. — A detective joining an organi- zation for the purpose of detecting and exposing criminals and bring- ing them to punishment is not a co-conspirator or accomplice in the eyes of the law so long as he honestly carries out his purpose, although he may have encouraged and counseled others to commit the crime." § 2995. Competency — ^If convicted of crime. — By the common law, persons convicted of infamous crimes were rendered incompetent as witnesses and excluded, but not so unless such conviction is followed by judgment." All crimes, under the common law, were not deemed infamous, and it was the infamy of the crime, and not the nature or mode of punishment, that made the witness incompetent.'' § 2996. Husband and wife — Competency. — The exclusion of hus- band and wife from being witnesses for or against each other is not •1 Blsh. Cr. Proc, § 1020; 1 "Campbell v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 187, Greenl. Bv., §§ 363, 379; P. v. Bill, 197; P. v. Bolanger, 71 Cal. 17, 11 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 95; S. v. Chyo Pac. 799; Com. v. Graves, 97 Mass. Chlagk, 92 Mo. 395, 4 S. W. 704, 7 114, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 1; S. v. Brown- Am. C. R. 410. See Whar. Cr. Bv. lee, 84 Iowa 473, 51 N. W. 25; Un- (9tli ed.), 439. Contra. Smith v. P., derhlll Cr. Bv., § 69. See "De- 115 111. 21, 3 N. E. 733; Collins v. fenses;" "Bvldence." P., 98 111. 588. 'Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 607; 'Waters v. P., 172 111. 371, 50 N. P. v. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601, 11 Pac. E. 148; Com. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 481, 8 Am. C. R. 57; Com. v. Lock- 424; White v. S., 52 Miss. 216; P. v. wood, 109 Mass. 323; S. v. Houston, Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 24 N. W. 843; S. 103 N. C. 383, 9 S. E. 699; 1 Greenl. V. Jones, 64 Mo. 391. See Underhill Bv., § 374; Blanfus v. P., 69 N. Y. Cr. Ev., § 71; S. v. Thompson, 47 La. 109; 3 Bl. Com. 369; Underbill Cr. 1597, 18 So. 621; Lawhead v. S., 46 Bv.. § 206. Neb. 607, 65 N. W. 779; S. v. Don- 'Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 607; nelly, 130 Mo. 642, 32 S. W. 1124; S. 3 Greenl. Bv., § 375. V. Hill (W. Va.), 35 S. E. 831. See "Evidence." § 2997 WITNESSES. 783 solely on the ground of interest, but partly on the identity of' their legal rights and interests and partly on principles of public policy which lie at the base of civil society.' § 2997. Husband and wife — ^Valid marriage essential. — It is only ■where there has been a valid marriage that the husband and wife are rendered incompetent and are excluded from testifying for or against each other by the common law.® § 2998. Husband and wife — Adultery.— Where a man and woman live together in adultery or fornication they are not thereby rendered incompetent witnesses for or against each other. The only test is, are they husband and wife F^" § 2999. Wife witness for co-defendant. — Where the husband and another are jointly indicted the wife can not testify for such other person if her testimony would have a tendency to influence the ease against her husband.^^ Nor is the wife competent as a witness for the co-defendant of her husband if they be tried separately.^^"- On the trial of two persons jointly indicted, if the grounds of defence are several and distinct and not dependent upon each other, the wife of one defendant may be admitted to testify for the other, but the wife is not a competent witness where the direct efEect is to aid the husband and where the testimony concerns him.^" § 3000. Husband and wife after divorce. — On the trial for adul- tery, committed by the defendant with the wife of a man who had sub- sequently procured a divorce, the divorced husband was a competent witness to prove his marriage to his divorced wife.^* 'Creed v. P., 81 111. 568; 1 Greenl. "aPullen v. P., 1 Doug. (Mich.) Ev., § 334; Mitchinson v. Cross, 58 48; Collier v. S., 20 Ark. 36; John- Ill. 368. See Johnson v. McGregor, son v. S., 47 Ala. 9. See UnderhlU 157 111. 352, 41 N. B. 558; UnderhlU Cr. Ev., § 188. Contra. S. v. Burn- er. Ev., § 184. side, 37 Mo. 343; Cornelius v. Com., 'Clark V. P., 178 111. 37, 52 N. B. 3 Mete. (Ky.) 481; Workman v. S., 857; S. V. Gordon, 46 N. J. L. 432, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 425. 4 Am. C. R. 3; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 339. « Gillespie v. P., 176 111. 238, 245, See "Bigamy " 52 N. B. 250; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 335. '» Rickerstricker v. S., 31 Ark. 208, " S. v. Dudley, 7 Wis. 664; S. v. 3 Am. C. R. 352; 1 Greenl. Bv., Briggs, 9 R. I. 361, 1 Green C. R. § 339. 516. "Ter. V. Paul, 2 Mont. Ter. 314, 2 Am. C. R. 335. 784 hushes' criminal law. § 3001 § 3001. Husband and wife, wife's adultery. — The husband of the woman with whom the offense of adultery was committed by the ac- cused is not a competent witness to prove the f act.^* § 3002. Husband and wife — Statement to others. — The defendant, on being interrogated regarding stolen goods which he had purchased, said: "My wife will make out my answer for me." His wife made out a statement in writing for him and handed it to the policfe the next day in the presence of her husband. Held competent.^" § 3003, Husband and wife— Impeaching each other. — ^A woman testified for the prosecution that she was present at the time of the homicide in question. The woman was married but had not been liv- ing with her husband for several years. Her husband was called as a witness for the defense, by whom the defendant offered to prove that the reputation of his wife for truth and veracity in the neighborhood where she resided was bad: Held error to refuse this testimony; it was competent.^* § 3004. Religious test — ^Form of oath. — There is no longer any test or qualification in respect to religious opinion or belief or want of the same which affects the competency of citizens to testify as witnesses. in courts of justice.^^ Every person believing in any other than the Christian religion shall be sworn according to the peculiar ceremony of his religion.^* § 3005. Deaf mute, competent, by signs. — A deaf mute is not dis- qualified as a witness because of his physical condition. His exami- nation may be carried on by means of signs, which may be interpreted by a qualified interpreter.^* "S. V. Wilson. 31 N. J. L. 77; S. L. 432, 17 Atl. 969; Underbill Cr. v. Gardner, 1 Root (Conn.) 485; S. Bv., § 201. V. Welch, 26 Me. 30. " S. v. Chyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395, "Queen v. Mallory, L. R. 13 Q. B. 4 S. W. 704, 7 Am. C. R. 415; 1 D. 33, 4 Am. C. R. 586. Greenl. Ev., § 371; P. v. Green, 99 "Ware v. S.. 35 N. J. L. 553, 1 Cal. 564. 34 Pac. 231; Underbill Cr. Green C. R. 513. See Owen v. S., Ev., § 199. 78 Ala. 425, 6 Am. C. R. 208. "Kirk v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 37 S. W. "Hronek v. P., 134 111. 152, 24 440; Skaggs v. S., 108 Ind. 53 8 N. E. 861; P. v. Copsey, 71 Cal. 548, N. E. 695; S. v. Howard, 118 Mo. 12 Pac. 721; S. v. Powers, 51 N. J. 127, 24 S. W. 41. See 4 Bl. Com. 303. § 3006 WITNESSES. 785 § 3006. Child as witness. — The capacity or incapacity of a child as a witness in certain essential particulars is a question of fact which the judge determines upon personal inspection and oral examination, and the finding of fact on such examination is not the subject of re- Tiew by a court of appeal on review.^" § 3007. Testing competency of witness. — When the state presented^ a certain witness the prisoner proposed to examine her and to intro- duce proof to show that she was not competent to testify : Held error to refuse, as it was the right of the prisoner to test the competency of the witness. And it is no answer that on another occasion (in another trial of a different person the day before) the judge made such examination.''^ § 3008. Witness rejected for incompetency. — Where a witness is rejected on the grounds of incompetency it must be presumed that the witness would have been rejected no matter how material his evidence might have been. In such case the party introducing the witness is not bound to state in advance what facts he expects to prove by him, unless required by the court.^^ § 3009. Defendant compelled to be witness. — A witness for the prosecution testified, among other things, that he discovered, at or near the house where the homicide occurred, tracks of a man's left foot and also impressions as if made by one's knee ; that it looked like he was on his knee of the other leg. He further said the prisoner's, right leg was cut off. In order to give the witness an opportunity to testify as to the character and extent of the amputation of the prisoner's leg the court ordered him to stand up in the presence of the jury. This was done for the purpose of determining whether his limb thus amputated would likely make an impression on the ground of the character testified to by the witness. Held error.^^ =° S. V. Scanlan, 58 Mo. 204, 1 Am. C. R. 459; Evans v. Hettick, 7 C. R. 186; Com. v. Lynes, 142 Mass. "Wheat. (U. S.) 453; Gebhart v. 577, 8 N. E. 408. See Williams v. Shindle, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 235. S., 109 Ala. 64, 19 So. 530; McGuff ^"^ Rickerstricker v. S., 31 Ark. 208. V. S., 88 Ala. 147, 7 So. 35; P. v. 3 Am. C. R. 351; S. v. Jim, 3 Jones Craig, 111 Cal. 460, 44 Pac. 186; (N. C.) 348; DufCee v. Pennington, 1 Blume V. S., 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. Ala. 506. 771; S. V. Baum, 64 N. J. L. 410, 45 '''Blackwell v. S., 67 Ga. 76, 4 Am. Atl. 806; S. V. Baughman (Iowa), C. R. 184; S. v. Jacobs, 5 Jones (N. 82 N. W. 452; S. v. Foote, 58 S. C. C.) 259; Day v. S., 63 Ga. 669. See 218, 36 S. E. 551. "Evidence." "White v. S., 52 Miss. 216, 2 Am. hughes' 0. L. — 50 786 HUGHES* CRIMINAL LAW. § 3010 § 3010. Defendant as witness. — The accused as a witness differs from other witnesses only in the fact that he is the defendant charged "with and being tried for crime, which may be considered in testing his credibility, but his testimony must be treated the same as that of any other witness.^* In case the defendant as a witness stands uncontra- dicted the jury are warranted in concluding that his testimony is true.2= § 3011. Defendant same as other witness. — In the light of author- ity and reason a defendant who, at his own option, becomes a witness, occupies the same position as any other witness; is liable to cross- .examination on any matters pertinent to the issue; may be contra- (dicted and impeached as any other witness, and is subject to the same ttests as other witnesses. And his credibility may be impeached by attacking his general reputation or character for truth and veracity."* § 3012. Juror as witness. — If a juror trying a cause knows anything •of the matter in issue he may be sworn as a witness and give his evi- dence publicly in court."' § 3013. Grand juror as witness. — The common law doctrine that a grand juror will not be permitted to testify how a witness testified before the grand jury, except in a prosecution for perjury, is not now ihe law."' ^ 3014. Dead witness, evidence of. — ^If a witness testified at a for- TQCT trial and was then cross-examined, his testimony so given at such former trial may be introduced at a subsequent or second trial if he has since died, and may be proved by witnesses who heard the testi- mony of the deceased witness."* ■" Sullivan v. P., 114 111. 27, 28 Atl. 831, 10 Am. C. R. 361; Murdock N. E. 381; Chambers v. P., 105 111. v. Sumner, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 156; 3 412; Gulllher v. P., 82 111. 146; S. v. Bl. Com. 375. Ober, 52 N. H. 459, 1 Green C. R. =»Bresslei v. P., 117 111. 436, 8 N. 211. E. 62; S. v. Wood, 53 N. H. 484, 2 ""Mulford V. P., 139 111. 595, 28 N. Green C. R. 354; Gordon v. Com., 92 'E. 1096. Pa. St. 216; Little v. Com., 25 Gratt. "■S. V. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 3 Am. (Va.) 921; Com. v. Mead, 12 Gray C. R. 141; Norfolk v. Gaylord, 28 (Mass.) 167. Conn. 309; Mershon v. S., 51 Ind. ^Hair v. S., 16 Neb. 601, 21 N. 14; Conners v. P., 50 N. Y. 240; S. W. 464; Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. St. V. Ober, 52 N. H. 459, 1 Green C. R. 325; Johnson v. S., 1 Tex. App. 333; 212; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 59. Barnett v. P., 54 111. 330; S. v. John- "S. V. Sawtelle, 66 N. H. 488, 32 son, 12 Nev. 121; Collins v. Com., 12 § 3015 WITNESSES. 787 § 3015. Absent witness. — Proof of what an absent witness swore to before the magistrate on an examination of the accused for the same oifense is not competent, even though the accused procured such witness to be taken out of the state beyond the jurisdiction of the court.'" § 3016. Explaining absence of witness. — Where a witness was pres- ent at the time and place of the crime, but was not present at the trial, it is competent to show where he was and why he was absent from the trial, otherwise he should have been called as a witness.*^ Article II. Credibility. § 3017. Jury judge of credibility — Disregarding credible wit- ness. — The question of the credibility of the witnesses is one peculiarly for the jury.^^ The facts are to be determined by the jury from all the evidence, and their decision in that respect will not be disturbed by an appellate court except in rare and unusual circumstances." But the jury have no right to arbitrarily disregard the testimony of a reliable witness.'* Article III. Sustaining Witness. § 3018. Confirming witness. — We find the decided weight of au- thority to be that proof of declarations made by a witness out of court, in corroboration of testimony given by him on the trial of a cause, is, as a general rule, inadmissible, even after the witness has Bush (Ky.) 271, 2 Am. C. R. 283; ^Bean v. P., 124 111. 580, 16 N. P. V. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137, 2 Green E. 656; Peeples v. McKee, 92 111. C. R. 414; Thompson v. S., 106 Ala. 397; Spahn v. P., 137 111. 543, 27 N. 67, 17 So. 512, 9 Am. C. R. 203; P. E. 688; Aholtz v. P., 121 111. 562, 13 V. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388, 2 Green N. E. 524; Huston v. P., 121 111. C. R. 452; Mattox v. U. S., 156 U. 500, 13 N. E. 538; Whitten v. S., 47 S. 237, 15 S. Ct. 337; XJnderhlll Cr. Ga. 297, 1 Green C. R. 579; 4 Bl. Ev., § 261. Com. 214. =" Bergen v. P., 17 111. 427; S. v. »=Watt v. P., 126 111. 26, 18 N. B. Atkins, 1 Tenn. 229; P. v. Newman, 340; Cronk v. P., 131 111. 60, 22 N. 5 Hill (N. Y.) 295; Finn v. Com., 5 E. 862; Davis v. P., 114 111. 99, 29 Rand. (Va.) 701; Wilbur v. Selden, N. E. 192; Dacey v. P., 116 111. 578, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 162; Hobson v. Doe, 6 N. E. 165; Scott v. P., 141 111. 214, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 308; Chess v. Chess, 30 N. E. 329; Johnson v. P., 140 111. 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 409; Le Baron v. 352, 29 N. E. 895; Moore v. S., 68 Crombie, 14 Mass. 234; 2 Starkie Ev. Ala. 360; Terry v. S., 13 Ind. 70. 894. Contra. Thompson v. S., 106 "McMahon v. P., 120 111. 584, 11 Ala. 67, 17 So. 512. 9 Am. C. R. 203; N. E. 883; Walsh v. P., 65 111. 63; Underbill Cr. Ev § 264. Jones v. S., 48 Ga. 164; S. v. Small- "P. v. Clark, 106 Cal. 32, 39 Pac. wood, 75 N. C. 104; S. v. Seymour 53, 9 Am. C. R. 599. (Idaho), 61 Pac. 1033. 788 hughes' criminal law. § 3G19 teen impeached or discredited.^' But where it is charged that a wit- ness in giving his testimony was prompted to do so under the influence of some motive inducing him to make a false statement, it may be shown in confirmation that he made similar statements at a time when the imputed motive did not exist.^® § 3019. Sustaining witness by former statements. — Where the credit of a witness is attacked by cross-examination or otherwise, by proving former statements contradictory to his statements in court, it is competent in his support to show statements made at other times and places consistent therewith.^^ Where the defense has impeached a witness the state may, by tebuttal, prove by other evidence that what such witness testified to is true.^' § 3020. Sustaining witness — Character. — Where the character of a witness has been attacked by evidence that he has been convicted of a felony, it may be sustained by evidence of his general reputation for truth and veracity.^^* But it can not be sustained where the witness had been impeached by proof of contradictory statements.^" Where a witness committed perjury on a former trial of the accused he will be permitted to state his reasons and what influences caused him to testify falsely at the former trial. To refuse him the privilege of explaining would in effect be condemning him without a hearing.*" Article IV. Impeaching Witness. § 3031. • Impeaching one's own witness. — As a general rule a party who voluntarily introduces a witness to give evidence in his behalf '''Stolp V. Blair, 68 111. 544; S. v. 105 Ala. 43, 16 So. 758, 10 Am. C. Hant, 137 Ind. 537, 37 N. E. 409, 9 R. 63; S. v. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, Am. C. R. 434; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 469; 3 Pac. 356, 5 Am. C. R. 546; P. v. Hobbs v. S., 133 Ind. 404, 32 N. B. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85; S. v. Parish, 79 1019; Ball v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 214, N. C. 610; Surles v. S., 89 Ga. 167, 20 S. W. 363. Contra, Underbill 15 S. E. 38; S. v. Jones, 29 S. C. Cr. Ev., § 241, citing Goode v. S., 201, 7 S. E. 296; Underbill Cr. Ev., '32 Tex. Cr. 505, 24 S. "W. 102; Con- § ^43. nor v. P., 18 Colo. 373, 33 Pac. 159; "'1 Roscoe Cr. Ev., 156; S. v. Mc- Lowe V. S., 97 Ga. 792, 25 S. E. 676. Kinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 Pac. 356, 5 ""Gates V. P., 14 111. 438; Stolp v. Am. C. R. 545; Duke v. S., 35 Tex. Blair, 68 111. 544; 1 Greenl. Ev., Cr. 283, 33 S. W. 349. § 469; McCord v. S., 83 Ga. 521, 10 '"ap. v. Amanacus, 50 Cal. 233, 1 S. E. 437, 8 Am. C. R. 636. Am. C. R. 197. "'1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 106, n. 3; ""P. v. Olmstead, 30 Micb. 431, 1 S. V. Vincent, 24 Iowa 575; Coffin v. Am. C. R. 305. Anderson, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 398; S. " S. v. Reed, 62 Me. 129, 2 Green T. Callaban, 47 La. 444, 17 So. 50, 10 C. R. 480; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray Am. C. R. 112; Yarbrougb v. S., (Mass.) 465; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 462. ■§ 3022 WITNESSES. 789 will be held as vouching for his truthfulness and as being entitled to credence, and will not be permitted to impeach him. To this rule, however, there are exceptions, as, where the party introducing the witness has been deceived or entrapped by him.*! If the defendant introduces a witness whose name is indorsed on the back of the indict- ment, such witness becomes his own witness.*'' § 3022. Impeaching defendant improperly .-=— Compelling the de- fendant on cross-examination to testify that he had frequented other saloons besides the one where the shooting occurred, on divers times, and had drunk and played cards and billiards there, is incompetent.** To compel the defendant on cross-examination to admit that he had visited houses of ill fame in different places, and the number of times, and that he had connection with the inmates of such houses, and also that he had played cards for money, is improper impeachment.** § 3023. Impeaching defendant — Infamous crime. — The fact that the defendant has been convicted of an infamous crime may be shown in evidence, when he offers himself as a witness, for the purpose of affecting his credibility. This is provided for by statute.*^ The statute of Illinois, removing the common law disability, excluding and dis- crediting witnesses, could not have been designed to allow proof of a conviction for an offense not legally presumed to affect his credibility to be given in evidence.*® § 3024. Impeaching witness improperly, — A witness can not be impeached on immaterial matters or matters not pertinent to the issue.*^ § 3025. Impeaching co-defendant. — If one of several defendants jointly indicted and tried testifies as a witness in his own behalf the "P. V. Jacobs, 49 Cal. 384; Gil- "Dacey v. P., 116 111. 575, 6 N. E. lett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 89. 165; Swan v. P., 98 111. 612; Kidwell "Bressler v. P., 117 111. 437, 8 N. v. S., 63 Ind. 384, 3 Am. C. R. 237; E. 62. Wfilcli V. S., 104 Ind. 347, 3 N. E. "Hayward v. P., 96 111. 502. See 850; Carter v. S., 36 Neb. 481, 54 Carr v. S., 43 Ark. 99, 5 Am. C. R. N. W. 853; Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 439. 1, 21 So. 214; Huber v..S., 126 Ind. "Gifford V. P., 87 111. 212; Aiken 185, 25 N. E. 904; "Wilson v. S., 37 V. P., 183 111. 221, 55 N. E. 695. Tex. Cr. 64, 38 S. W. 610;- P. v. Stack- '"Sec. 6, Dlv. 42, of the Crim. house, 49 Mich. 76, 13 N. W. 364; Code of Illinois; Bartholomew v. P., Reynolds v. S., 147 Ind. 3, 46 N. E. 104 111. 607. 31; S. v. Conerly, 48 La. 1561, 21 So. ""Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 608; 192; S. v. Brown, 100 Iowa 50, 69 Collins V. P., 98 111. 588. N. W. 277. 790 hughes' criminal law. § 3026 other defendants have the same right to impeach him on cross-exami- nation as though he had been called as a witness for the state.** § 3026. Impeaching reputation of witness. — The reputation of t. "witness for truthfulness can not be impeached by proof of particular acts; it must be by proving his general reputation for fruth and veracity to be bad.** § 3027. Impeaching witness' recollection. — If a witness neither directly admits nor denies the act or declaration, as when he merely says he does not recollect, or gives any other direct answer, not amounting to an admission, it is competent to prove the affirmative by way of impeachment.'* § 3028. Impeaching by contradiction — Former statement. — ^Before a witness can be called to impeach a witness by way of showing some- thing he said out of court contradictory to what he testified on the trial, his attention must be first called at the time and place, as to what he said out of court, thereby affording him an opportunity of explain- jjjg 61 rpjjg deceased was shot and killed at Bay View on May 15. A witness for the state testified that the prisoner admitted to her in a conversation between them that he had shot a man the night before at Bay View. But at the inquest this same witness stated as follows : "He (prisoner) said he had shot a man the night before, but did not say where it was." Defendant offered in evidence the statement of the witness thus made at the inquest for the purpose of impeaching her : Held competent and error to refuse it.'^ " S. V. Goff, 117 N. C. 755, 23 S. E. " Aneals v. P., 134 111. 412, 25 N. 355, 10 Am. C. R. 20; S. v. Patterson, E. 1022; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 462; Jack- 2 Ired. (N. C.) 346. son v. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 919, 2 "GifEord v. P., 87 111. 214; Mc- Green C. R. 654; P. v. Bush, 65 Cal. Carty v. P., 51 111. 231; Dlmick v. 129, 3 Pac. 590; S. v. Hart, 67 Iowa Downs, 82 111. 570; Randall v. S., 142, 25 N. W. 99; P. v. Webster, 139 132 Ind. 539, 32 N. E. 305; S. v. TST. Y. 73, 34 N. E. 730; Underhill Rogers, 108 Mo. 202, 18 S. W. 976; Cr. Ev., § 238; Carpenter v. S., 62 S. V. Gesell, 124 Mo. 531, 27 S. W. Ark. 286, 36 S. W. 900; P. v. Shaw, 1101; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 236. Ill Cal. 171, 43 Pac. 593; Com. v. "Bressler v. P., 117 111. 434, 8 N. Mosier, 135 Pa. St. 221, 19 Atl. 943; E. 62; Ray v. Bell, 24 111. 451; Wood Hester v. S., 103 Ala. 85, 15 So. 857; V. Shaw, 48 111. 276; 1 Roscoe Cr. P. v. Bosquet, 116 Cal. 75, 47 Pac. Ev. 216; 1 Thomp. Trials, § 507; 879; P. v. Chin Hane, 108 Cal. 597, Smith V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 20 S. W. 41 Pac. 697; Com. v. Smith, 163 554; Payne v. S., 60 Ala. 80; Bill- Mass. 411, 40 N. E. 189; Kent v. S., Ings v. S., 52 Ark. 303, 12 S. W. 42 Ohio St. 426; Gillett Indirect & 504; Wagner v. S., 116 Ind. 181, 18 Col. Ev., § 89. N. B. 833. "^ P. v. Devine, 44 Cal. 452, 2 Green § 3029 WITNESSES. 791 § 3029. Impeaching by contradiction — ^Identification. — ^An officer whc arrested the defendant for a criminal assault on a woman testified' that he took him to the house of the woman to see whether she would; identify him, and that she did identify him as the person who assault- ed her. On cross-examination the officer was asked that if, at the close of this interview, he did not say to the woman, naming her, as follows: "Mrs. Hale, as you can not identify him and swear to him positively, there is no use of my holding him ;" and also, if he did not afterwards, at a time and place named, referring to the attempted identification, say that "she could not swear to him positively." Held error to refuse this cross-examination.^' § 3030. Impeaching by contradiction — Hostility. — ^There is no dis- tinction, so far as the rule is concerned, between admitting declara- tions of hostility of a witness for the purpose of affecting the value of his testimony and admitting contradictory statements for the same purpose, as in either case an opportunity should be given the witness to explain what he said.°* § 3031. Impeaching by contradiction — ^AU said. — To discredit the witness Foster, the witness May testified to facts tending to show that Foster, on the trial, testified differently than on the hearing before the justice. May stated a part of Foster's former testimony; the court properly admitted evidence of all of it. To impeach a witness by showing a part of what he said would be unjust ; all he said should be shown."" § 3032. Impeaching by contradictions — ^Letter. — A witness for the prosecution on cross-examination denied that he had any knowledge whatever of a letter shown him purporting to have been written by him to the defendant, stating that he knew nothing against the de- fendant relating to the transaction : Held competent for the purpose of impeaching the witness on making prima facie proof that it was written at the dictation of the witness and was in fact sent by him to the defendant."' C. R. 406; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray "S. v. Mackey, 12 Or. 154, 6 Pac. (Mass.) 463; Stephens v. P., 19 N. 648, 5 Am. C. R. 534. Y. 549. See Jones v. P., 166 III. 269, " S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl- 46 N. E. 723. 483, 8 Am. C. R. 218. " Burt V. S., 23 Ohio St. 394, 2 " Schriedley v. S., 23 Ohio St. 130, Green C. R. 544. 2 Green C. R. 533. See UnderhiK Or. Ev., § 239. 792 hughes' criminal law. § 3083 §3033. Impeachmg: by contradiction — Grand jury evidence. — Testimony given by a witness before the grand Jury is in no sense i confidential eommumcation to the attorney for the prosecution, al- though given in his presence and hearing. The prosecuting attorney, having heard the testimony of the witness so given, becomes a com- petent witness to tell what such witness said before the grand jury, for the purpose of impeaching him, by showing contradictory state- ments.^'' § 3034. Impeaching by contradiction — ^Before coroner. — Two wit- nesses testified before the coroner that they knew nothing what- ever as to how the deceased received the injuries causing death, and on the trial they stated that they saw the accused beat the deceased to death with a eltib. The only explanation for this extraordinary and unprecedented conduct was that they feared injury from the ac- cused. Their testimony was greatly impaired if not wholly de- stroyed.^' § 3035. Impeaching witness — ^Failure to disclose. — The defendant introduced witnesses living in the vicinity who testified that at or about the time of the homicide in question they saw a man riding away at a rapid gait on a different colored horse from that ridden by the de- fendant, and also saw two other persons in an -open buggy. Counsel ior the prosecution, on cross-examination, asked these witnesses if they told what they had seen, to anybody, and one said she had, nam- ing a neighbor to whom she had told what she had seen. This neigh- bor was called in rebuttal and said that the witness told her nothing of the kind. Held proper impeaching testimony.^* § 3036. Impeaching by showing ill will. — It is competent to show «n cross-examination that the witness has feelings of ill-will or hatred toward the party against whom he testifies, and if he denies the same, contradictory evidence may be introduced to impeach him.°° § 3037. Impeached, by criminal- life. — ^Under the evidence the witness Brown was so completely impeached that no credit should "S. V. Van Buskirk, 59 Ind. 385, 3 '"Aneals v. P., 134 111. 414, 25 N. Am. ,C. R. 356. E. 1022, citing 1 Greenl. Bv., § 450; '» Gibbons v. P., 23 111. 466. Phenlx v. Castner, 108 111. 207. ™S. V. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570. 5 Am. C. R. 544, 3 Pac. 356. § 3038 WITNESSES. 793 have been given his evidence by an intelligent jury. Ke admitted on cross-examination that he had served a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary; had also been convicted of larceny and charged with burglary and larceny "all his life," and was impeached o-n his general reputation in the neighborhood where he resided/^ Article V. Opinions op Witness. §3038. Opinions by non-experts. — Non-experts may give their opinion on the mental condition of a person, at the same time stating the facts observed on which they base their opinions, including con- versations as a part of the facts ; their opinion must be based on the specific facts thus disclosed.*^ § 3039. Opinions — ^By medical experts. — Medical experts, gradu- ates of medical colleges who have practiced their profession many years, in giving their testimony and opinion as experts, are not con- fined to opinions derived from their own observations and experience, but may give an opinion based upon information derived from med- ical books."* § 3040. Opinions, by bank experts. — The opinion of a banker is admissible as to the genuineness of a bank note, he having made the subject a matter of study.** Article VL Privileges op Witness. § 3041. Privilege from arrest. — A witness will be, protected from arrest not only during the time he is going to and from the place where he is required to attend court, but also during the time of his detention at court."® "'EUer V. P., 153 111. 345, 38 N. B. '^ Siebert v. P., 143 111. 579, 32 N. 660; Walsh v. P., 65 111. 63. E. 431; S. v. Wood, 53 N. H. 484; ""1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), i 440; Mitchell v. S., 58 Ala. 417. Contra, Jamison v. P., 145 111. 377, 34 N. B. Soquet v. S., 72 Wis. 659, 40 N. W. 486; Upstone v. P., 109 111. 175; P. 391. V. Borgetto, 99 Mich. 336, 58 N. W. « Keating v. P., 160 111. 487, 43 N. 328; Shults v. S., 37 Neb. 481, 55 B. 724; Atwood v. Cornwall, 28 Mich. N. W. 1080; Parsons v. S., 81 Ala. 336; May v. Dorsett, 30 Ga. 116; 577, 7 Am. C. R. 288, 2 So. 854; Dove Crawford v. S., 2 Ind. 132. V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 348, 1 Green «= Thompson's Case, 122 Mass. 428;| C. R. 766; S. v. Ketchey, 70 N. C. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 258. 621, 2 Green C. R. 747. See "Evi- dence." 794 hughes' criminal law. § 3042 § 3042. Privilege of witness from exposure. — ^A witness is not bound to answer any question, either in a court of law or equity, the answer to which will expose him to any penalty, fine, forfeiture or punishment, or which will have a tendency to accuse him of any crime or misdemeanor, or to expose him to any penalty or forfeiture, or which would be a link in a chain of evidence to convict him of a crim- inal offense ; nor can he be compelled to produce books or papers hav- ing the same efEect.*' But where the criminal prosecution, to which the answer of a witness might render him liable, has been barred by the statute of limitations, he can not claim his privilege, but must tes- tify ; and it should appear afiBrmatively that no prosecution is then pending.*^ § 3043. Privilege may be waived — ^When not. — The privilege that a person is not bound to testify on a matter that would convict him or furnish evidence against him may be waived, and if he elect to tes- tify, and give false testimony, he may be indicted for perjury.'* A witness who becomes the moving cause of a prosecution by voluntarily signing and swearing to the complaint or information, or voluntarily appears before the grand jury, and by his testimony procures an in- dictment, does not thereby waive his privilege of refusing to give evidence which will criminate or tend to criminate himself on being called as a witness at the trial of the cause."' § 3044. Privilege, of attorney and client. — The relation of attor- ney and client can not exist for the purpose of counsel in concocting crime. The privilege can not be claimed in such cases.'"' A com- munication to or advice from the representative of an attorney is no less privileged than a communication by or to the attorney. Thus, a "Lamson v. Boyden, 160 III. 618, "Lamson v. Boyden, 160 111. 618, 43 N. B. 781 (citing Minters v. P., 43 N. E, 781. 139 111. 365, 29 N. E. 45; 1 Greenl. '^Mackin v. P., 115 111. 321, 3 N. Ev., §§ 451-454); Mackin v. P., 115 E. 222; S. v. Maxwell, 28 La. 361; 111. 321, 3 N. B. 222; Wildon v. Chamberlain v. P., 23 N. Y. 85; Bolen Burch, 12 111. 375; Counselman v. v. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. B. 408. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 12 S. Ct. ™ Samuel v. P., 164 111. 383, 384, 45 195; P. V. Mather, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) N. E. 728; Temple v. Com., 75 Va. 229; Boyle v. Smithman, 146 Pa. St. 892. 255, 23 Atl. 397; Stevens v. S., 50 ™P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, Kan. 712, 32 Pac. 350; S. v. Kent, 5 23 N. W. 594, 6 Am. 0. R. 280; P. v. N. D. 516, 67 N. W. 1052; Com. v. Blakeley, 4 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 176; Trider, 143 Mass. 180, 9 N. E. 510; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 175. Bolen V. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. E. 408. § 3045 WITNESSES. 795 clerk, interpreter or agent of °the attorney will not be allowed ^to'tes- tify to any communication made to him in a professional capacity by a client of his employer.'* § 3045. Privilege is personal to witness. — The privilege of a wit- ness in refusing to give evidence tending to criminate him is personal to the witness, and can not be interposed by either of the parties to the cause, nor can either party raise the objection for the witness.''^ § 3046. Statute relating to witness' privilege. — A statutory enact- ment requiring a witness to give evidence which may convict him of a crime is unconstitutional, unless it affords absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which the question relates. The exonerating statute must be so broad as to give the witness complete amnesty.''^ Aeticle VII. Additional Witnesses. § 3047. Additional witnesses at trial. — It has frequently been held not to be error to allow a witness to testify whose name is not on the indictment, and where no notice has been given that the witness would be called.'* But if it appears that the testimony of any witness was given not indorsed on the indictment, or no notice given that any such witness would be called, then it is error.'" Other witnesses than those' on the indictment may, in the discretion of the court, be called and examined on notice first given.'" "Underbill Cr. Ev., § 173, citing "Trask v. P., 151 111. 529, 38 N. Hawes v. S., 88 Ala. 37, 68, 7 So. E. 248; Logg v. P., 92 111. 598; Bul- 802. liner v. P., 95 111. 394; Kota v. P., »*Samtielv. P., 164 HI. 383, 45 N. 136 111. 658, 27 N. E. 53; Gore v. P., E. 728; Reg. v. Kinglake, 11 Cox 162 111. 266, 44 N. B. 500; Kirkham C. C. 499; Bolen v. P., 184 111. 3S9, v. P., 170 111. 13, 48 N. E. 465; S. v. 66 N. E. 408. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 Pac. 356; "Lamson v. Boyden, 160 111. 620, Minich v. P., 8 Colo. 440, 9 Pac. 4; 43 N. E. 781, citing Counselman v. Bolen v. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. E. 408; Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 12 S. Ct. S. v. Regan, 8 Wash. 506, 36 Pac. 195. 472. See also, as to indorsing wit- " Simons v. P. 150 111. 76, 36 N. nesses on indictment: S. v. Hawks, E. 1019; BuUiner v. P., 95 111. 394; 56 Minn. 129, 57 N. W. 455; S. v. Logg V. P., 92 111. 598; Smith v. P., Doyle, 107 Mo. 36, 17 S. W. 751; S. 74 111. 144; Gates v. P., 14 111. 436; v. Sorter, 52 Kan. 531, 34 Pac. 1036; Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 89. S. v. Bokien, 14 Wash. 403, 44 Pac. "P. V. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N. 889; Johnson v. S., 34 Neb. 257, 51 W. 665; Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. N. W. 835; Rauschkolb v. S., 46 Neb. 147. 658, 65 N. W. 776. 796 hughes' criminal law. § 3048 § 3048. All eye-witnesses to a crime.- — The prosecution should he required to call all the witnesses indorsed on the indictment, unless, perhaps, in cases where the witnesses are too numerous.'^ Article VIII. Exclubing Witnesses. § 3049. Excluding witnesses from court — Counsel forbidden to consult witness. — Where a witness violates the order of the court ex- cluding witnesses from the court room, the court may, in its discre- tion, permit the witness to testify; he is not necessarily rendered in- competent.'^ If the court refuse to let counsel for the accused consult with his own witnesses, upon the ground that they were under the rule, and for no other reason, this will be error sufficient to reverse.''* Article IX. Witness Fees. § 3050. Witness fees when subpenaed. — In civil actions a witness is not compelled to obey a subpena as such witness unless his fees and mileage shall have been tendered him, and the rule applies as well to a party to the suit where subpenaed by his opponent as a witness.'" At common law no witness fees were paid, and in the absence of a stat- ute authorizing it, no fees can be taxed as costs or recovered.'^ § 3051. Fees of expert witness. — A physician called as an expert witness to give his opinion in answer to a hypothetical question can "P. V. Btter, 81 Mich. 570, 45 N. Mass. 56, 33 N. E. 1111; Trujillo v. W. 1109; S. V. Magoon, 50 Vt. 333. Ter., 6 N. M. 589, 30 Pac. 870; S. v. Contra, S. v. Smallwood, 75 N. C. Whitworth, 126 Mo. 573, 29 S. W. 104; Morrow v. S., 57 Miss. 836; S. 595; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 225; P. v. V. Cain, 20 W. Va. 679; S. v. Mar- Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515, 11 Pac. 673; tin, 2 Ired. (N. C.) 101; Bonker v. Cunningham v. S., 97 Ga. 214, 22 S. P., 37 Mich. 4, 2 Am. C. R. 82. E. 954; Bishop v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 " Bow V. P., 160 111. 441, 43 N. E. S. W. 170. See S. v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 593; S. V. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 8 Am. 531, 27 S. W. llOl. C. R. 211, 17 Atl. 483; P. v. O'Lough- "Allen v. S., 61 Miss. 627, 4 Am. lin, 3 Utah 133, 1 Pac. 653, 4 Am. C. R. 252; White v. S., 52 Miss. 216, C. R. 548; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 432; Has- 2 Am. C. R. 461. kins V. Com., 8 Ky. L. 419, 1 S. W. '"Rapalje's Law of Witnesses, p. 730; Rummel v. S., 22 Tex. App. 519; Vickers v. Hill, 1 Scam. (I1L> 558, 3 S. W. 763; Leache v. S., 22 307; Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Bryant, Tex. App. 279, 3 S. W. 539; P. v. 15 111. 438. Garnett, 29 Cal. 629. Contra, Rooks "» Dixon v. P., 168 111. 187, 48 N. V. S., 65 Ga. 330, 4 Am. C. R. E. 108; Smith v. McLaughlin, 77 484. See also Bulliner v. P., 95 111. 596; Board of Comrs. v. Lee, 3 111. 399; Kota v. P., 136 111. 658, Colo. App. 177, 32 Pac. 841; S. v. ,27 N. B. 53; McLean v. S., 16 Ala. Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. 458, 672; Kelly v. P., 17 Colo. 133, 29 6 Am. C. R. 424; S. v. Kinne, 41 N. Pac. 805; Com. v. Thompson, 159 H. 238. § 3052 WITNESSES. 797 not refuse to answer the question upon the ground that no greater compensation than that allowed to ordinary witnesses has been paid or promised him.*^ §3052. Arrest of witness in court, error. — Three material wit- nesses who testified for the , defendant proved or tended to prove an alibi for him. After these witnesses had testified, the court, in the presence and hearing of the jury, commanded the sheriff to arrest them, and such arrest was made in the presence of the jury, and made because of the evidence just given by them for the defendant. Held error sufficient to reverse.*^ Article X. Examination of Witnesses. § 3053. Examination, in discretion of court. — The examination of witnesses is a matter so largely in the discretion of the court that a court of review will not interpose, except where there has been an abuse of that discretion.** § 3054. Further examination discretionary. — It is in the discretion of the court to admit further evidence in the trial of a cause, after the case is closed and before the jury retires.*^ A witness may be recalled for further examination after his direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross-examination, in the discretion of the court.** § 3055. Counsel should examine. — The examination of witnesses is more the appropriate function of counsel than the judge of the court. It is a task of great delicacy and much difficulty for a presid- ing judge to so conduct the examination of a witness as to prevent the jury from learning the trend of his mind." The court may ask any question on any material matter omitted by counsel for the prosecu- "^ Dixon V. P., 168 111. 186, 48 N. »* Birr v. P., 113 111. 646. E. 108; Flinn v. Prairie Co., 60 Ark. »Bolen v. P., 184 111. 339, 56 N. 204, 29 S. W. 459; Ex parte Dement, B. 408. 53 Ala. 389; Rogers Expert Testl- ™Pigg v. S., 145 Ind. 560, 43 N. mony (2(J ed.), § 188; S. v. Teipner, E. 309; S. v. Dilley, 15 Or. 70, 13 36 Minn. 535 32 N. W. 678. Contra, Pac. 648; S. v. Robinson, 32 Or. 43, Wright V P 112 111 544; Buchman 48 Pac. 357; P. \. McNamara, 94 V. S. 59 Ind.'l, 26 Am. R. 75, 2 Am. Cal. 509, 29 Pac. 953; Brown v. S., C R 187 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186. '"'Burke v. S., 66 Ga. 157, 4 Am. »'Dunn v. P., 172 111. 595, 50 N. C. R. 580. E. 137. 798 HUGHES* CRIMINAL LAW. § 3056 tion or defense.'* The court did not err by asking the defendant the following question: "You say you were born in Chicago and mean to tell this jury you don't know where Dearborn street is ?"** § 3056. Leading questions, improper. — The court, in a rape case, permitted a series of leading questions to be put to each of the wit- nesses (two young girls, of the ages of eleven and nine), and to be answered, and which, on the material matters, were answered by "yes" or "no," the questions directly indicating the answer sought. Held error sufficient of itself to reverse."" Where a witness was asked a leading question, which was objected to and ruled out, it was held the witness might testify to the same point if the question be properly put.»i § 3057. Memorandum, aiding memory. — That a witness may be permitted to refresh his memory from a writing or memorandum made by himself shortly after the occurrence of the fact to which i+ relates can not be questioned; such writing or memorandum is used, not as evidence, but to aid the memory.** If a witness, in giving his testimony, refers to a book or memorandum as to facts involved in the issue, he is bound to produce the memorandum, and it is error for the court to refuse to compel the witness to produce it.'* Article XI. Ceoss-Examinatioit. § 3058. Intentional omission on first examination. — Where a wit- ness, on a second examination as to a particular transaction, states an important fact omitted in his previous account of the matter, his attention, on cross-examination, may properly be called to the fact, and if he intentionally caused the discrepancy, it would and should affect his credibility."* *»Epps V. S., 19 Ga. 102; Colee v. "1 Ros. Cr. Ev. 214, citing Hels- S., 75 Ind. 511; S. v. Lee, 80 N. C. ler v. S., 20 Ga. 153. 483; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 214; S. v. »» S. v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1 12 Pac Atkinson, 33 S. C. 100, 11 S. E. 318, 7 Am. C. R. 388; Daniel v S 693. 55 Ga. 222, 1 Am. C. R. 187; 1 Roscoe =» Rogers v. P., 98 III. 583. See Cr. Ev. 220; Com. v. Clancy 154 Underbill Cr. Ev., § 214. Mass. 128, 27 N. E. 1001; Jenkins •»Coon v. P., 99 111. 369; Cannon v. v. S., 31 Pla. 196, 12 So. 677; Under- P., 141 111. 278, 30 N. E. 1027; Barnes hill Cr. Ev., § 217. V. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 320, 39 S. W. 684; »» Daniel v. S., 55 Ga. 222, 1 Am. Com. v. Chaney, 148 Mass. 6, 18 C. R. 187; Duncan v. Seeley 34 N. E. 572; Anderson v. S., 104 Ala. Mlcb. 369; Chute v. S. 19 Minn 83, 16 So. 108; Hamilton v. S. (Tex. 271, 1 Green C. R. 573; 1 Greenl' Cr.), 58 S. W. 93. Ev., § 466. "Ritzman v. P., 110 111. 371. § 3059 -v^iTNESSES, 799 § 3059. Cross-examination — When improper. — It is a well-settled rule that a witness can not be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue merely for the purpose of contra- dieting him by other evidence, if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony. His answer is conclusive against the party.®'' § 3060. Cross-examination controlled in offensive details. — The exercise of the right of cross-examination may be controlled by the court to such an extent as does not infringe upon the right itself. Such control is often exercised to prevent offensive details when the meaning of the witness can as well be conveyed by intimation and suggestion."* § 3061. Cross-examination — ^Latitude allowed. — If a witness, com- petent to testify, be sworn to give evidence by the party calling him, the opposing party will be entitled to cross-examine him, although he has not been examined in chief."' Great latitude should always be allowed in cross-examination, especially in a capital case. The right of cross-examination is Justly esteemed one of the most efficient means of eliciting the truth.®' In the cross-examination of witnesses for the prosecution, who were parties to the affray, the broadest latitude should be allowed, and, on the other hand, their examination by the people should be correspondingly restricted."" When the defendant, as a witness, in accounting for his time on the night of the robbery, stated that he went to a certain part of the town, he may be cross- examined as to what he and his companions were doing there.^"" § 3062, Cross-examination on letters. — On cross-examination by the defense, the witness admitted writing some letters shown her, and passages were then read to her from them in the presence of the jury. This gave the prosecution the right to read the whole of the letters to the jury.^ '"3 Greenl. Ev., § 449; Moore v. 264; P. v. Murray, 52 Mich. 288, 17 P., 108 111. 487; Crittenden v. Com., N. W. 843; 2 Phillipps Bv. 898. 82 Ky. 164, 6 Am. C. R. 202; Welch "Ritzman v. P., 110 111. 371; Tracy V. S., 104 Ind. 347, 5 Am. C. R. 454, v. P., 97 111. 103. 3 N. E. 850. See Underhill Cr. Ev., ™ Sutton v. P., 119 111. 254, 10 N. § 60. B. 376. " S. V. Plant, 67 Vt. 454, 32 Atl. ™ P. v. Clark, 106 Cal. 32, 39 Pac. 237, 10 Am. C. R. 275. 53, 9 Am. C. R. 602. "Beal V. Nichols, 2 Gray (Mass.) ^Beasley v. P., 89 111. 579. 800 hughes' criminal law. § 3063^ § 3063. Cross-examination — Witness may explain. — Where a wit- ness, on cross-examination, is asked if she did not say a certain thing,, and denies having said it, she may afterwards show what she did say.^ § 3064. Questions for Impeachment. — Where are you stopping at 'this time? A. I am in the jail of Taylor county. How long have you been in jail? A. Since the last part of February. These ques- tions were propounded to a witness who testified for the defendant. Held competent.' A witness for the defense, on cross-examination, was asked this question : State if you have ever been confined in the Baltimore city jail ? Held competent, though the authorities are con- flicting.* § 3065. Inquiry as to reputation. — The proper inquiry is whether the witness knows the general reputation of the person sought to be impeached or sustained, among his or her neighbors, for truth and veracity, whicu question must be answered in the affirmative before asking what that reputation is." § 3066, Impeachment by cross-examination. — The witness, on cross-examination, said that he had formerly been a member of the firm of Granger & Sabin, bankers at Detroit. Defendant's counsel then a^ked him this question : Did you not, while a member of that firm, extract from an envelope securities which were left in your vault for safe keeping, and use their proceeds in stoch speculations in New York? Held competent.^ § 3067. Impeaching by contradiction. — On a charge of an inde- cent assault on a female, the prosecuting witness having testified that ^ Scott V. P., 141 111. 214, 30 N. B3. Ky. L. 219, 20 S. W. 267; S. v. Phil- 329; Dressier v. P., 117 111. 435, 8 pot, 97 Iowa 365, 66 N. W. 730; P. N. E. 62; Tracy v. P., 97 III. 105. v. GiWin, 115 N. Y. 196, 21 N. E. = S. V. Pugsley, 75 Iowa 744, 8 Am. 1062; Warren v. Com., 99 Ky. 370, C. R. 102, 38 N. W. 498; Smith v. S., 18 Ky. L. 141, 35 S. W. 1028. 64 Md. 25, 6 Am. C. R. 197, 20 Atl. = Glfford v. P., 148 111. 176, 35 N. 1026; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 244. E. 754; Glfford v. P., 87 111. 210; "Smith v. S., 64 Md. 25, 20 Atl. Laclede Bank v. Keeler, 109 111. 385; 1026, 6 Am. C. R. 197; S. v. Pugsley, Crabtree v; Hagenbaugh, 25 111. 214; 75 Iowa 744, 8 Am. C. R. 102, 38 Dlmick v. Downs, 82 111. 570; Ter. N. W. 498; P. v. Ogle, 104 N. Y. 511, v. Paul, 2 Mont. Ter. 314, 2 Am. C. 11 N. E. 53; Com. v. Bonner, 97 R. 332. Mass. 587; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 61. »P. v. Arnold, 40 Mich. 710, 3 Am. See also S. v. Hilsabeck, 132 Mo. 348, C. R. 75. 34 S. W. 38; Roberts v. Com., 14 § 3068 WITNESSES. 801 the defendant took indecent liberties with hei* person, on a day -when he took her to drive, and on cross-examination she having denied on a subsequent occasion telling him, in the presence of a person named, that she would kiss him if he would take her to drive, it is competent to call such person and show that she did so tell himJ § 3068. Impeachment — Questions concerning conviction. — A wit- ness may be asked on cross-examination, within the discretion of the court, not only concerning his conviction, but also concerning any serious charge brought against him.* § 3069. Proving contradictions, how show. — To contradict a wit- ness on the trial by showing that he made different statements in his former testimony, the counsel should select such passages in the notes of his former testimony as were claimed to be in conflict with his pres- ent story. To go further is error.® § 3070. Improper cross-examination of defendant. — On cross-ex- amination of the defendant the counsel for the state was pennitted, against objection, to ask him the following questions: Did you as- sault Mr. Farrer on the Calais road, while drunk ? Similar questions were allowed to be put to the witness against objection as to assaults on several other persons at different times and places while drunk. These matters had not been gone into in the examination in chief. Held incompetent, having no connection with the case (murder), and not proper impeachment of the witness.^" On a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, on the cross-examination of one of the de- fendants, the court permitted a wide range. The defendant was asked if she had not rented a house for purposes of prostitution; whether she had not had a fight with a prostitute at a certain time; whether her picture did not hang in the rogues' gallery in the city of New York; whether she had not at one time chased a man through a sa- loon; whether she had not been drunk while in jail, and other ques- tions of like nature. Held to be improper impeachment, oppressive, unjust and highly injurious and prejudicial.^^ On the trial of a 'Com. v. Bean, 111 Mass. 438. C. R. 58; Holbrook v. Dow, 12 Gray 'Driscoll V. P., 47 Mich. 417, 11 (Mass.) 357; Com. v. Thrasher, 11 N. W. 221; S. V. Bacon, 13 Or. 143, Gray (Mass.) 450. 9 Pac. 393, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 81. " S. v. Glelm, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. °S. V. Hannett, 54 Vt. 83, 4 Am. 998, 10 Am. C. R. 54; P. v. Un C. R. 41. Dong, 106 Cal. 83, 39 Pac. 12. '° S. V. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 2 Am. HDGHES' C. L.-=-51 802 hughes' criminal law. § 3071 case for causing a miisance by keeping a house of ill fame, counsel for the prosecution was permitted, over objection, to ask a witness for the state these questions : What is the reputation of Clara Hull, the defendant ? Do you know her reputation for chastity ? Held error, the reputation of the defendant not being in issue.^^ § 3071. Cross-examination of defendant limited. — Church, C. J., says: "I am of opinion that the cross-examination of persons who are witnesses in their own behalf, when on trial for criminal offenses, should in general be limited to matters pertinent to the issue, or silch as may be proved by other witnesses. I believe such a rule necessary to prevent a conviction of one oifense by proof that the accused may have been guilty of others. Such a result can only be avoided, prac- tically, by the observance of this rule."^^ 1 3072. Examination of officer, prejndicial. — On examination, a "police officer was asked: Why did you tell Cannon (defendant) to _^o home and go to bed ? Answer : Well, we had often had him under arrest before. Held manifest error to permit this question :and answer to stand.^* Article XII. Evidence of Dead Witness. § 3073. Dead witness' testimony. — The correct method of intro- ducing the testimony of a witness taken by a stenographer, at a for- mer trial of the same cause (the witness having since died), would perhaps be to first ask the witness if he could state from memory the testimony of the deceased witness, and if he can not, he can refresh his memory by the notes taken by him.^° In proving the testimony of a deceased witness given on a former trial, the precise language used by the deceased need not be shown — the substance is sufficient. And any minutes taken by counsel, if shown to be substantially correct, may be read in evidence as showing what was the testimony of the deceased witness.^* "^ S. V. Hull, 18 R. I. 207, 26 Atl. « Hair v. S., 16 Neb. 601, 21 N. 191, 10 Am. C. R. 428. W. 464, 4 Am. C. R. 131; Underbill "P. V. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571; Cr. Bv., § 261; Horton v. S., 53 Ala. ■Clarke v. S., 78 Ala. 474, 6 Am. C. 488; P. v. SUgh, 48 Mich. 54, 11 H. 533; S. v. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 2 N. W. 782. jVm. C. R. 58, 59. '° P. v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137, 2 "Cannon v. P., 141 111. 278, 30 Green C. R. 417; Brown v. Com., 73 2^. E. 1027. Pa. St. 321, 2 Green C. R. 515; S. § 3074 WITNESSES. ' 803 Article XIII. Expert Witness. § 3074. Questions to expert. — The questions to an expert witness may be propounded from the whole of the evidence, if not conflicting, or any part of it ; but where the facts on one side are in conflict with the facts on the other side, they ought not to be incorporated in one question.^^ The rule is that questions must be based upon the hypoth- esis of the truth of all the evidence, or upon a hypothesis specifically framed of certain facts assumed to be proved for the purpose of the inquiry.^' § 3075. Hypothetical questions — ^How framed — To non-experts. — In framing hypothetical questions it is not required to set forth all the facts and circumstances of the case, the other party having the right to introduce any fact or circumstance omitted by the party pro- pounding the question.^' Propounding a long hypothetical question which assumes the existence of a multitude of facts is improper.^" Hypothetical questions to non-expert witnesses are improper. Non- expert witnesses are incompetent to give opinions on a hypothetical state of facts.""^ § 3076. Cross-examination of expert. — In cross-examining a medi- cal expert, counsel have a right to assume the facts as they believe them to exist, and to ask the expert's opinion upon the facts thus as- sumed.^^ An expert may be examined beyond the scope of the evi- dence, for the purpose of eliciting his reasons for his opinion, or to test his knowledge.^^ The other party may cross-examine the ex- pert witness by taking his opinion based upon any other state of facts assumed by him to have been proven by the evidence, provided that such hypothetical state of facts is within the scope of evidence.^^ v. Houser, 26 Mo. 435; Com. v. Rich- 539, 554, 1 N. E. 491; Zoldoske v. ards, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 434; 1 Greenl. S., 82 "Wis. 580, 52 N. W. 778; Con- Ev., § 165; Jackson v. S., 81 Wis. way v. S., 118 Ind. 482, 490, 21 N. 127, 51 N. W. 89; S. v. O'Brien, 81 E. 285. Iowa 88, 46 N. W. 752. " 1 Thomp. Trials, § 612; Haisli "Coyle v. Com., 104 Pa. St. 117, v. Payton, 107 111. 371. 4 Am. C. R. 383; Fairchild v. Bas- '"aRagland v. S., 125 Ala. 12, 27 comb, 35 Vt. 406. So. 983. "*3 Greenl. Ev., § 5; 1 Thomp. ^1 Thomp. Trials, § 628, citing Trials, § 604. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Falvey, 104 , ''Williams v.' S., 64 Md. 384, 1 Atl. Ind. 409, 3 N. B. 389, 4 N. E. 908. 88t, 5 Am. C. R. 516; Howard v. P., ==1 Thomp, Trials, § 628, citing 185 111. 559, 57 N, B. 441; Underhill Erickson v. Smith, 2 Abh. App. Dec. Cr. Ev., § 318, citing Goodwin v. S.. (N. Y.) 65. 96 Ind. 550, 554; Epps v. S., 102 Ind. "^P. v. Currant, 116 Cal. 179, 48 804 hughes' criminal law. § 3077 § 3077, Medical expert — On part of testimony. — A medical expert who has not heard all the testimony of all the medical witnesses re- lating to the cause of death can not give his opinion from such por- tions he heard. His conclusions can not be based on part of the tes- timony, but on all of it.^* § 3078. Competency of medical expert. — ^A physician can not tes- tify as an expert on sjrmptoms of poisoning who has never treated or seen a case of poisoning in his practice, and whose knowledge is only such as he has obtained by reading books and from his instruction at the medical school.^' § 3079. Opinion of medical expert — Upon what based. — ^An expert may give an opinion upon a statement of facts assumed to be in evi- dence, but not upon the conclusions or inferences of other witnesses. The witness was not asked his opinion in regard to the dislocation of the neck of the deceased based upon the failure of Dr. Gill, who con- ducted the examination, to produce crepitation, but based also upon conclusions reached by Dr. Gill. This was clearly objectionable.^® Article XIV. ISTon-Expekts. § 3080. Non-expert witness, competency. — Under proper circum- stances a common witness may testify directly as to sanity or insan- ity, solvency or insolvency, and also as to persons being sick or in pain, whether a person was drunk or sober, whether a horse is safe or gen- tle.^^ Non-expert witnesses for the defendant, having on their direct examination detailed fully the facts upon which their opinions were based, and having stated in answer to a question by the defense as to the mental condition of the defendant, "He never was just right," then the following question was held competent on cross-ex- amination : "I will ask you whether, in your opinion, the defendant has not sense enough to know right from wrong ?"^* Pac. 75, 10 Am. C. R. 528; Filer v. "Gallagher v. P., 120 111. 182, 11 New York Cent, etc., R. Co., 49 N. E. 335; Yarbrough v. S., 105 Ala. N. Y. 46. 43, 16 So. 758, 10 Am. C. R. 64; "" S. v. Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257, 1 Sydleman v. Beckwith, 43 Conn. 13; Green C. R. 236. See Underbill Cr. P. v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 566; Under- Ev., § 318. hill Cr. Ev., §§ 161, 167; Phel')s v. =°Underhill Cr. Ev., § 318, citing Com., 17 Ky. L. 706, 32 S. W. 470. Soquet v. S., 72 Wis. 662-665, 40 ^ S. v. Porter, 34 Iowa 131, 1 Green N. W. 391. Contra, P. v. Thacker, C. R. 245; Yarbrough v. S., 105 Ala. 108 Mich. 652, 66 N. W. 562. 43, 10 Am. C. R. 64, 16 So. 758. " Williams v. S., 64 Md. 384, 1 Atl. 887, 5 Am. C. R. 517. § 3081 WITNESSES. 805 § 3081. Opinion, competent — ^When incompetent conclusions. — A witness is allowed to state appearances in any case where they are in their nature incapable of exact and minute description; for example, the health or sanity of a person, the appearance of a person when charged wiih crime ; and when the facts are of such a character as to be incapable of being presented with their proper force to any one but the observer himself, so as to enable the court or Jury to draw a correct or intelligent conclusion from them without the aid of the judgment or opinion of the witnesses who had the benefit of personal observation, the witness is allowed, to a certain extent, to add his conclusion, judgment or opinion.^* The defense, in attempting to establish an alibi, "offered to show to the jury that, in the opinion of the witness, the defendant could not have left or got out of the house without the witness knowing it. Held incompetent as calling for an opinion or conclusion.^" § 3082. "Impression" of witness — Conclusions. — A witness, on ex- amination as to any material facts, may be permitted to state his im- pressions, such as, "That is my impression;" "I think so;" "But I am not positive." The fainter the impression, the less weight it should have.'^ The person whose, name was alleged to have been forged was examined as a witness. He stated that he would recog- nize the signature to the warrant or order as genuine if he had seen it anywhere else. He was then asked if he would state that the paper was a forgery, to which question the defendant objected, and the court overruled the objection. The witness replied: "Yes; the paper is a forgery." This was error. ^^ "S. V. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. v. Layton, 4 Cox C. C. 149. Contra, 483, 8 Am. C. R. 212; Stowe v. Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. 161. Bishop, 58 Vt. 500, 3 Atl. 494. "■ S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 8 Am. C. ^Bennett v. S., 52 Ala. 370, 1 Am. R. 218, 17 Atl. 483; Humphries v. C. R. 190; Walker v. Walker, 34 Parker, 52 Me. 502; Underhill Cr. Ala. 469; S. v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 163; Bv., § 55. Pelamourges v. Clark, 9 Iowa 16; '^Wiggins v. S., 1 Lea (Tenn.) Crane v. Northfield, 33 Vt. 124; Reg. 738, 3 Am. C. R. 143. CHAPTER LXXXIV. EVIDENCE. Aet. I. Statutory Eules; Elements, . . §§3083-3085 II. Affirmative and Negative, . • . §§ 3086-3088 III. Corpus Delicti, §§ 3089-3093 IV. Confessions; Statements, • . • §§ 3094r-3109 V. Declarations of Accused, ■ • • §§ 3110-3115 VI. Declarations of Third Persons, . §§ 3116-3120 VII. Hearsay Evidence, §§ 3121-3123 VIII. Previous Assaults, Attempts, . . §§ 3124^-3125 IX. Flight as Evidence, §§ 3126-3127 X. Defendant's Silence, ....§§ 3128-3130 XI. Articles, Things, Implements, . §§ 3131-3135 XII. Motive ; Intention, § 3136 XIII. Other Offenses; Acts, ....§§ 3137-3140 XIV. Experiments, When Proper, . . §§ 3141-3142 XV. Best Evidence; Documents, . . §§3143-3145 XVI. Former Conviction, Evidence, . §§ 3146-3147 XVII. Eecord Evidence, §§ 3148-3151 XVIII. Defendant's Character, . . . §§ 3152-3158 XIX. Character of Deceased, .... § 3159 XX. Sustaining Evidence, .... § 3160 XXI. Compelling Defendant to Furnish Evidence, §§ 3161-3163 XXII. Evidence on Insanity, ....§§ 3164-3167 XXIII. Previous Threats, §§ 3168-3170 XXIV. Evidence, Where Several Defendants, § 3171 XXV. Accomplices Uncorroborated, . §§ 3172-3173 XXVI. Detective Evidence, § 3174 XXVII. Opinion Evidence, §§ 3175-3176 XXVIII. Expert Evidence, §§ 3177-3178 XXIX. Scientific Books, §§ 3179-3180 XXX. Witness' Former Testimony, . . § 3181 (806) ^3083 EVIDENCE. 807 Art. XXXI. Impeaching Evidence, . . XXXII. Evidence of Absent Witness, XXXIII. Handwriting, Evidence of, . XXXIA^. Estoppel not Applicable, . . XXXV. Photographic Pictures, . . XXXVI. "Checks," "Slips," . . . XXXVII. Fictitious Person— Evidence of. XXXVIII. Proving Corporation, . . XXXIX. Eebuttal Evidence, . . . XL. Proof of Venue, .... XLI. Variance, When, .... XLII. Jury to Weigh Evidence, . XLIII. Circumstantial Evidence, . XLIV. Eules as to Circumstantial Evidence, 3183 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189-3190 3191-3192 3193-3197 3198-3201 3202-3203 3204-3205 3206-3213 Article I. Statutory Eules; Elements. § 3083. Statutory rules of evidence. — The legislature has power to enact that even in criminal actions, where certain facts have been proved, they shall be prima facie evidence of the main fact in ques- tion.* § 3084. Essential elements — ^Burden. — "The proof of the charge in criminal cases involves the proof of two distinct propositions : First, that the act itself was done; and, secondly, that it was done by the person charged, and none other. In other words, proof of the corpus delicti, and of the identity of the prisoner."^ It is an elementary and fundamental principle that every material fact essential to constitute an offense must be distinctly alleged and proven to warrant a convic- tion, and the burden is on the prosecution.^ 'P. V. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32, 34 N. E. 759; S. v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479, 25 S. W. 573; Underbill Cr. Ev., i 16; Com. v. Williams, 6 Gray (Mass.) 1; S. v. Hurley, 54 Me. 562; Rotertson v. P., 20 Colo. 279, 38 Pac. 326, 9 Am. C. R. 293; Board, etc., v. Merchant, 103 N. Y. 148, 8 N. E. 484; American, etc.. Bank v. Paeschke Mfg. Co., 150 111. 336, 37 N. B. 227. See Carr v. S., 104 Ala. 4, 16 So. 150, 10 Am. C. R. 86; Parsons v. S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. U. See § 1447. "3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 30; Carroll v. P., 136 111. 462, 27 N. B. 18; Gore v. P., 162 111. 265, 44 N. B. 500; Carlton v. P., 150 111. 186, 37 N. B. 244, 41 Am. R. 346; Winslow V. S., 76 Ala. 42, 5 Am. C. R. 45. ^VFilliams v. P., 101 III. 385; P. V. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. 790; Gravely v. S., 38 Neb. 871, 57 N. W. 751; Jones v. S., 51 Ohio St. 331, 38: N. E. 79; S. v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339, 32 S. W. 1110; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 23. 808 hughes' criminal law. § 3085 § 3085. Evidence deficient — ^Wanting. — The failure of a witness to testify on the part of the prosecution, or the absence of certain facts, or the want of evidence, is important in determining the issues in a cause.* The mere fact that goods were missed from a store and found in possession of a person will not warrant a conviction for larceny.^ Article II. Affirmative and Negative. § 3086, Affirmative, negative evidence. — The testimony of a wit- ness having full opportunity to see and know that a person did not do an act, such as the striking of a blow, is affirmative evidence." A witness for the prosecution, having testified that the defendant made an admission tending to prove guilt, and another having testified for the defendant that he was present, and says that no such conversation or admission was made by the defendant, then it was proper to ask that if any such conversation was had, as testified to by the witness for the prosecution, would he have heard it?^ § 3087. Proving negative proposition. — Where the subject-matter of a negative averment lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, the averment is taken as true, unless disproved by that party.^ If one witness of equal knowledge and credibility swears positively to a fact, and many swear negatively that they did not see or know the fact, the one witness swearing positively, and not con- tradicted, is to be believed in preference to the many.* § 3088. Preponderance, insufficient — Conjecture. — In criminal cases the evidence must exclude all reasonable doubt to authorize a conviction. Neither a mere preponderance of evidence, nor any *1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 59; 1 Greenl. 'Maynard v. P., 135 111. 434, 25 Ev., § 13a; May v. P., 92 111. 345; N. E. 740. S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483, 'Williams v. P., 121 111. 90, 11 N. 8 Am. C. R. 222; Jarrell v. S., 58 E. 881; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 79; Har- Ind. 293; Stout v. S., 90 Ind. 1; Rice baugh v. City of Monmouth, 74 111. V. Com., 102 Pa. St. 408, 4 Am. C. 371; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 128; R. 566; Lacy v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. 78, S. v. Keggon, 55 N. H. 19, 2 Green 19 S. W. 896.- See P. v. Davis, 97 C. R. 369; Com. v. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. Cal. 194, 31 Pac. 1109 (owner). 615, 21 Atl. 7; S. v. Crow, 53 Kan. "Johnson v. S., 86 Ga. 90, 13 S. E. 662, 37 Pac. 170; S. v. Woodward, 34 282; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), 32. Me. 293; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 24, 'Coughlin V. P., 18 111. 268; 1 Ros- p. 34. coe Cr. Ev. 87; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, "Johnson v. S., 14 Ga. 55; Coles v. § 1071. Perry, 7 Texas 109; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 87. §3089 EVIDENCE. 809 weight of preponderant evidence is sufBeient for the purpose, unless it generates full belief of the fact to the exclusion of all reasonable . doubt. ^" Testimony which raises a mere conjecture ought not to go to a jury as evidence proving or tending to prove a material fact in issue.* Article III. Corpus Delicti. § 3089. Corpus delicti, defined — Proving. — The corpus delicti, or body or substance of an offense, means the existence of a criminal fact.^^ The prosecution must prove the corpus delicti beyond a rea- sonable doubt.^^ And it may be established by circumstantial evi- dence alone. ^* § 3090. Corpus delicti, circumstantial evidence. — The weight of authority now is that all of the elements of the corpus delicti may be proved by presumptive or circumstantial evidence.'^* The corpus de- licti must be proven before evidence as to how or by whom it was com- mitted is competent.^" "3 Greenl. Ev., § 29; Shields v. S., 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85, 9 Am. C. R. 155. "S. V. Carter, 72 N. C. 99, 1 Am. C. R. 445; S. v. Allen, 3 Jones (N. C ) 257 "P. V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 16 N. E. 529, 7 Am. C. R. 401; Sam v. S., 33 Miss. 347; Campbell v. P., 159 111. 19, 42 N. B. 123; Laughlin v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 640, 37 S. W. 590; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 118. " S. V. Parsons, 39 W. Va. 464, 19 S. E. 876; Gray v. Com., 101 Pa. St. 380, 47 Am. R. 733; Lee v. S., 76 Ga. 498; Power v. P., 17 Colo. 178, 28 Pac. 1121; P. v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 N. E. 65; Hunter v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 599, 31 S. W. 674; S. v. Hambright, 111 N. C. 707, 16 S. E. 411; Traylor v. S., 101 Ind. 65. " Com. V. Johnson, 162 Pa. St. 63, 29 Atl. 280; Johnson v. Com., 81 Ky. 325; Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 41 Am. R. 346, 37 N. E. 244; Campbell v. P., 159 111. 9, 42 N. B. 123; S. v. Winner, 17 Kan. 298; Wilson v. S., 43 Tex. 472; S. v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433; Martin v. S., 125 Ala. 64, 28 So. 92; Underbill Cr. Ev., §7. ^^ Campbell v. P., 159 111. 22, 42 N. E. 123; Smith v. Com., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 809; S. v. Williams, 7 Jones L. (N. C.) 446, 78 Am. Dec. 248; Kerr Homicide, p. 539, § 493; Wills Cir. Ev. 179; P. V. Parmelee, 112 Mich. 291, 70 N. W. 577; Laughlin v. Com., 18 Ky. L. 640, 37 S. W. 590; 3 Greenl. Ev., §§ 30, 131; Carroll v. P., 136 111. 463, 27 N. E. 18; Gore v. P., 162 111. 265, 44 N. B. 500; S. v. David- son, 30 Vt. 377; Winslow v. S., 7G Ala. 42, 5 Am. C. R. 45; McCullochv. S., 48 Ind. 109; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 310, 52 Am. D. 711; P. V. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230; Morgan v. S., 51 Neb. 672, 71 N. W. 788; Gray v. Com., 101 Pa. St. 380. See P. v. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 16 N. B. 529, 7 Am. C. R. 402. Contra, RulofE v. P., 18 N. Y. 179; Reg. v. Hopkins, 8 C. & P. 591; 2 Hale P. C. 290. " Carlton v. P., 150 111. 186, 37 N. E. 244; Winslow v. S., 76 Ala. 42; P. V. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N. W. 665, 4 Am. C. R. 359; McCulloch v. S., 48 Ind. 109, 1 Am. C. R. 318; P. V. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230; Zoldoske v. S., 82 Wis. 580, 52 N. W. 778; S. v. Keeler, 28 Iowa 551; S. v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438; Johnson v. Com., 81 Ky. 810 hughes' criminal law. § 3091 § 3091. Corpus delicti — ^When connects accused. — The same evi- dence which connects or tends to connect the accused with the charge may also tend to prove the corpus delicti, so that the existence of the crime and the guilt of the defendant may stand together inseparable on one foundation of circumstantial evidence. ^^ § 3092. Corpus delicti — Cases illustrating. — After the lapse of several months, in the woods, between the house where the defendant lived and the field where he went to work when he was accompanied by the deceased, a pair of old boots and some other clothing were found, and also some bones. The evidence introduced to identify the boots and clothing as those belonging to and worn by the deceased only showed that they were similar, no witness swearing to a positive identification. Held not sufiicient proof of the corpus delicti.^^ Cir- cumstantial evidence is competent to identify a skeleton produced as the remains of the deceased, as well as to show the cause and man- ner of death : as, if a skeleton found is of the sex of the person charged to have been murdered.^* § 3093. Corpus delicti — Confessions not sufficient. — The corpus delicti can not be established alone by the confessions of the accused. This rule is fully recognized by the ablest text-writers and the gen- eral current authorities.^" It must be established by evidence other than declarations or confessions.^'^ 325, 4 Am. C. R. 140; P. v. Millard, 123. See Moore v. P., 190 111. 236, 53 Mich. 63, 18 N. W. 562. See 60 N. E. 535; Gray v. Com., 101 Pa. Johnson v. S., 83 Ga. 553, 12 S. B. St. 380, 47 Am. R. 773; May v. P., 92 471. 111. 343; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 217; Lam- " Carroll v. P., 136 111. 463, 27 bright v. S., 34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 582, 9 N. E. 18; P. v. O'Neil, 109 N. Y. 251, Am. C. R. 391; S. v. German, 54 Mo. 16 N. B. 68. 526; P. v. Deacons, 109 N. Y. 374, 16 "S. v. German, 54 Mo. 526, 2 N. B. 676 ; Laughlin v. Com., 18 Ky. L. Green C. R. 605-7. 640, 37 S. W. 590; P. v. Simonsen, "McCulloch V. S., 48 Ind. 109; 3 107 Gal. 345, 40 Pac. 440; Davis v. S., Greenl. Ev., § 133. Proof held suffl- 51 Neb. 301, 70 N. W. 984; Heard v. eient in the following cases: P. v. S., 59 Miss. 545; Harris v. S., 13 Tex. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444, 50 Pac. 675; App. 309; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 147; Kugadt V. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 681, 44 S. Gillett Indirect and Col. Bv. § 117 W. 989; Moore v. P., 190 111. 336, 60 "'Gore v. P., 162 111. 265, 44 N. E. N. E. 535. But not sufficient: High 500; South v. P., 98 111. 263; May v. V. S., 26 Tex. App. 545, 10 S. W. P., 92 111. 345; 1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. 238; P. v. Ah Fung, 16 Cal. 137; ed.), § 217; P. v. Badgley, 16 Wend. Morris v. Com., 20 Ky. L. 402, 46 S. (N. Y.) 53; P. v. Hennessey, 15 W. 491. See S. v. Patterson, 73 Mo. Wend. (N. Y.) 147; Andrews v. P. 695. 117 111. 201, 7 N. E. 265; Bergen v. ""Williams v. P., 101 111. 386; P., 17 111. 428; P. v. Tarbox, 115 Cal. Campbell v. P., 159 111. 24, 42 N. B. 57, 46 Pac. 896; Bartley v. P., 156 IlL § 3094 EVIDENCE. 811 Article IV. Confessions; Statements, § 3094. Confessions made voluntarily.— Where the crime is clearly shown, independently of admissions or confessions, to have been com- mitted by some person, then admissions or confessions freely or vol- untarily mc.ie may be sufficient to convict." §3095. Confessions— Weight. — Extra-judicial confessions, when freely and voluntarily made, are of the highest order of evidence.^' But Blackstone says : "They are the weakest and inost suspicious of all testimony ; ever liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, prom- ises of favor, or menaces; seldom remembered accurately or reported with due precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence."^* Verbal admissions of a person on trial charged with a crime should be received with great caution, as that kind of evidence is subject to imperfection and mistake."' § 3096. Confessions obtained by promise. — If any degree of influ- ence has been exerted to induce the accused to make a confession, it is incompetent. Telling the accused it would be better for him to tell the whole story and the punishment would likely be lighter, and thereby procure a confession, renders it incompetent."* Burns, the accused, was taken into the presence of three officers. If any of the 240, 40 N. B. 831; Winslow v. S., 76 231; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., Ala. 42, 5 Am. C. R. 45; Smith v. S., § 100. 17 Neb. 358, 5 Am. C. R. 365, 22 N. ""Langdon v. P., 133 111. 392, 24 W. 780; Ter. v. McClin, 1 Mont. 394, N. E. 874; Miller v. P., 39 111. 457; 1 Green C. R. 707; S. v. German, 54 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 216, 219. See Un- Mo. 526, 2 Green C. R. 605; Johnson derhill Cr. Ev., § 146. See Hill v. V. S., 59 Ala. 37, 8 Am. C. R. 259; S. (Neb.), 85 N. W. 836. Harden v. S., 109 Ala. 50, 19 So. 494; '*4 Bl. Com. 357; Bergen v. P., 17 Holland v. S., 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 111. 427; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 146. 298; Attaway v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 403, Persona arrested and charged with 34 S. W. 112. crime should not be questioned or =^Gore V. P., 162 111. 265, 44 N. B. cross-examined by the police: Rex 500; S. V. Ahbatto, 64 N. J. L. 658, 47 v. Histed, 19 Cox C. C. 16. Atl. 10; Andrews v. P., 117 111. 195, 7 '" Marzen v. P., 173 111. 61, 50 N. E. N. E. 265; Fuller v. S., 109 Ga. 809, 249; 1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), 35 S. E. 298; Anderson v. S., 72 Ga. § 200. See Gillett Indirect & Col. 98, 5 Am. C. R. 449; Williams v. P., Bv., § 116. 101 111. 382; P. v. Meyer, 162 N. Y. == Robinson v. P., 159 111. 119, 42 357, 56 N. B. 758, 14 N. Y. Cr. 487, 56 N. E. 375; Com. v. Preece, 140 Mass. N. Y. Supp. 1097; Underbill Cr. Bv., 276, 5 N. B. 494, 5 Am. C. R. 107; § 126, citing Com. v. Preece, 140 S. v. Day. 55 Vt. 570, 4 Am. C. R. Mass. 276 5 N. E. 494; P. v. Taylor, 105. Contra, S. v. Bradford, 156 Mo. 93 Mich. 638, 641, 53 N. "W. 777; 91, 56 S. W. 898; S. v. Komstell Walker v. S., 136 Ind. 663, 36 N. E. (Kan.), 61 Pac. 805. 356; P. v. Ward, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 812 hughes' criminal law. § 3097 officers said to Burns, "You had better tell the truth, or you had better tell about it," and the accused confessed, such confession would be in- competent.^^ A confession procured on the promise by the state's attorney that it should not be used against him is not competent.'" Where the respondent claims that the confessions made by him were procured by solitary confinement and the promises by the jailor that he could go below with the other prisoners, this was a promise of a temporary boon, and not a hope or favor held out in respect of the criminal charge, and the holding out of such favor does not exclude the evidence of confession.''* § 3097. Confessions, throngli hope. — The witness Stokes said to the prisoner : "Tom, this is mighty bad ; they have got the dead wood on you, and you will be convicted," and at the same time said something to him about "owning up." Another witness, at the same time, said to the accused : 'TTou are very young to be in such difficulty as this ; there must have been some one with j'ou who was older, and I, if in your place, would tell who it was ; it is not right for you to suffer the whole penalty and let some one else who is guiltier go free, that it might go lighter with you." Held incompetent.'" § 3098. Confessions — ^Through fear. — Confessions induced by the appliances of hope or fear are not regarded as voluntarily made, and are therefore not to be relied on as true.*^ The rule is a confession can never be received in evidence when the prisoner has been influ- enced by any threat or promise. ^^ § 3099. Confessions by threat. — "Any the slightest menace or threat, or any hope engendered or encouraged that the prisoner's case will be lightened, meliorated or more favorably dealt with if he will " Com. V. Preece, 140 Mass. 276, 5 140 Mass. 276, 5 Am. C. R. 107, 5 N. Am. C. R. 107, 5 N. B. 494; Flagg v. E. 494. P., 40 Mich. 706, 3 Am. C. R. 71. '^ Gates v. P., 14 111. 436; 1 Greenl. ''Robinson v. P., 159 111. 119, 42 Ev., § 219; Johnson v. S., 59 Ala. 37, N. E. 375. 3 Am. C. R. 258; Newman v. S., 49 » S. v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483, 3 Am. C. Ala. 9, 1 Am. C. R. 173; P. v. Barrie, R. 166; 3 Greenl. Ev., § 229; Rex v. 49 Cal. 342, 1 Am. C. R. 181; Gillett Green, 6 C. & P. 655; S. v. Went- Indirect & Col. Ev., § 110. worth, 37 N. Y. 218. "'Austine v. P., 51 111. 239; Bart- ■» Newman v. S., 49 Ala. 9, 1 Am. ley v. P., 156 111. 238, 40 N. E. 831; C. R. 179; Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. Queen v. Thompson, 2 Q. B. D. 12, 9 532, 18 S. Ct. 183, 10 Am. C. R. 565, Am. C. R. 272; 2 Starkie Ev. 36; 572. See Reg. v. Reeve, 12 Cox 179, Biscoe v. S., 67 Md. 6, 8 Atl. 571. 1 Green C. R. 398; Com. v. Preece, § 3100 EVIDENCE. 813 confess — either of these is enough to exclude the confession thereby superinduced."^^ The confession of the accused, a girl of fourteen, was reluctantly made, and before she made it, said: "If I tell you, won't you hurt me ?" To which the officer replied : "No, you shant be hurt; I came here to arrest you and you shant be hurt." Held incompetent.^* § 3100. Confessions when under arrest. — Admissions or confessions are admissible even when the defendant is under arrest, if no improper influence was used to induce the accused to make them and he was free to speak in denial.*" § 3101. Confessions by deception — No warning given. — Confes- sions otherwise competent are admissible, though obtained by artifice, deception or falsehood. '° A confession freely and voluntarily made by the accused is competent evidence against him, although he may not have been warned that it might be used against him.*' When a confession has been once obtained, after appliances of hope or fear, any subsequent confession must alike be excluded until the prisoner's mind is perfectly free to make a voluntary confession, as if no attempt had ever been made to induce him to confess.** . § 3102. Confessions made when intoxicated. — There is no rule of law which compels jurors to believe confessions made by a defendant ''Owen v. S., 78 Ala. 425, 6 Am. 9 Am. C. R. 150; S. v. Jones, 54 Mo. C. R. 206. 478, 2 Green C. R. 604; S. v. Phelps, '*Barp V. S., 55 Ga. 136, 1 Am. C. 74 Mo. 136, 21 Am. L. Reg. 482; R. 171. See Reg. v. Reeve, 12 Cox Burton v. S., 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 179, 1 Green C. R. 398 and note. 284; Osborn v. Com., 14 Ky. L. 246, "'Sparf V. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 20 S. W. 223. S. Ct. 273, 10 Am. C. R. 171; P. v. "S. v. Baker, 58 S. C. Ill, 36 S. E. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, 72 Am. D. 484; 501. See White v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 P. V. Druse, 103 N. Y. 655, 8 N. B. S. W. 100. 733, 5 N. Y. Cr. 10; Whar. Cr. Ev. ''Owen v. S., 78 Ala. 425, 6 Am. (9th ed.), § 661; Anderson v. S., 25 C. R. 207; Com. v. Sheets, 197 Pa. Neb. 550 41 N. W. 357; Pierce v. St. 69, 46 Atl. 753; 1 Greenl. Ev., U. S., 160 U. S. 355, 16 S. Ct. 321; § 214; 1 Whar. Cr. L., § 594; S. v. Willis V. S., 93 Ga. 208, 19 S. E. 43; Jones, 54 Mo. 478, 2 Green C. R. Jackson v. Com., 100 Ky. 239, 18 Ky. 603; Com. v. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 269; L. 795 38 S. W. 422, 1091; Williams Van Buren v. S., 24 Miss. 512; V. S 37 Tex Cr. 147, 38 S. W. 999; Barnes v. S., 36 Tex. 356, 1 Green Underbill Cr. Ev., § 129. C. R. 649; S. v. Guild, 5 Hals. (N. J. "1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. (8th ed.) 81; L.) 192, 18 Am. D. 404; S. v. Potter, Andrews v P 117 111. 201, 7 N. B. 18 Conn. 166. See Com. v. Piper, 265; King v. S. 40 Ala. 314; P. v. 120 Mass. 185; U. S. v. Nardello, 4 Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N. W. 539; Mackey (U. S.) 503; Underbill Cr. Heldt V. S., 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626; Ev., § 130. Shields v. S., 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85, 814 hughes' criminal law. § 3103 when he is sober in preference to those of a contradictory character made when drunk. The relative credibility of the statements is a question for the jury.'® § 3103. Confessions, competency for court. — The court must de- cide in the first instance whether the evidence of the corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to allow evidence of confessions to go to the jury." § 3104. Confessions — Preliminary proof. — When a confession is offered in a criminal case it is incumbent on the prosecution to lay the foundation for its introduction by preliminary proof showing prima facie that it was freely and voluntarily made.*^ § 3105. Confessions — ^Testing competency. — Where objection is made to evidence of confessions upon the ground that they were made in consequence of offers of favor by the officer who arrested the de- fendants, it is the duty of the judge to determine that fact by hearing all competent evidence relating to the matter, which may be ten- dered by either party to the cause.*^ The question, where objection is made to the admissibility of the confession, must in the first in- stance be adjudged by the court; and then to inquire of the witness and prove that the confession was induced by threats and promises can not be postponed until after the confession is introduced and the entire examination of the witness in chief has been concluded.*' The accused is entitled to introduce all his evidence tending to prove the "Finch V. S., 81 Ala. 41, 1 So. St. 464, 470; S. v. Davis, 34 La. 351; 565; Com. v. Howe, 75 Mass. 110; S. UnderhlU Cr. Ev., § 127. V. Grear, 28 Minn. 426, 10 N. W. "Com. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 484, 472; S. V. Feltes, 51 Iowa 495, 1 N. 3 Am. C. R. 81; S. v. Fldment, 35 W. 755; Jefferds v. P., 5 Park. Cr. Iowa 541, 2 Green C. R. 633; Kirk v. (N. Y.) 522; P. v. Ramirez, 56 Cal. Ter. (Okl.), 60 Pac. 797; 1 Greenl. 533; South v. P., 98 111. 261; Under- Ev., § 219; Simmon v. S., 61 Miss, hill Cr. Ev., § 137. 243; S. v. Storms (Iowa), 85 N. W. "Lambright v. S., 34 Fla. 565, 9 610. Am. C. R. 390, 16 So. 582; Gray v. "Rufer v. S., 25 Ohio St. 463; Com., 101 Pa. St. 380. Ter. v. McClin, 1 Mont. 394, 1 Green "P. V. Soto, 49 Cal. 67; Nicholson C. R. 705; S. v. Fidment, 35 Iowa V. S., 38 Md. 153; S. v. Garvey, 28 541, 2 Green C. R. 632; Hunter v. La. 925, 26 Am. R. 123; P. v. Swet- S., 74 Miss. 515, 21 So. 305; P. v land, 77 Mich. 60, 43 N. W. 779; Howes, 81 Mich. 396, 45 N. W. 961- Amos V. S., 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 126; Hauk v. Contra, Williams v. S., 19 Tex. App. S., 148 Ind. 238, 46 N. E. 127 47 276; Com. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464, 3 N. E. 465. Am. C. R. 81; Rufer v. S., 25 Ohio § 3106 EVIDENCE. 815 Mcompet'ency of the confession before admitting the confession in evidence.** § 3106. Testing competency— Age, condition, situation. — ^Whether; a confession made was voluntary is a question for the consideration and determination of the court and is usually shown by negative an- swers to such questions, as, whether the prisoner had been told it would fe better for him to confess or worse for him if he did not, or whether similar language had been addressed to him. The better test is a fair and just consideration of the age, condition, situation and character of the prisoner and all the circumstances attending the confession.*" § 3107. Confessions — All that was said. — "In the proof of confes- sions, as in the case of admissions in civil actions, the whole of what the person said on the subject at the time of making the confession should be taken together."*" A witness introduced to prove the confession of the accused, on cross-examination stated that he could "not remember all the conversation that took place ; that a great many things were said he did not remember." The witness having failed- to state that he remembered the substance of all that was said, his testimony was held incompetent.*' § 3108. Confession reduced to writing. — Where a statute requires that the justice of the peace shall reduce to writing the voluntary confession of the accused, to be by him certified to the next term of the circuit court, on or before the first day of the term, the law conclusively presumes that if anything was taken down by him in' writing he performed his whole duty by taking down all that was material. In such case parol evidence of what the prisoner may have said on that occasion can not be received on the trial.** § 3109. Confessions — Leading to discovery. — Confessions induced through promises, hope or fear, are not voluntary, but if such con- fessions thus obtained lead to the discovery of the property stolen, or " Com. V. Culver, 126 Mass. 464, Bv., § 218) ; Everhart v. S., 47 Ga. 3 Am. C. R. 81; Brown v. S., 70 Ind. 608; S. v. Davis, 34 La. 351. 576; Simmons v. S., 61 Miss. 243; "Berry v. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) Rufer V. S., 25 Ohio St. 464; Under- 15, 1 Am. C. R. 274; P. v. Gelabert, hill Cr. Ev., § 127. 39 Cal. 663; CofEman v. Com., 10 "Johnson v. S., 59 Ala. 37, 3 Am. Bush (Ky.) 495, 1 Am. C. R. 294. C. R. 258; P. v. Barker, 60 Mich. « Wright v. S., 50 Miss. 332, 1 Am. 277, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 70, 27 N. W. 539. C. R. 192; 1 Greenl. Bv., § 227; « Berry v. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.) Peters v. S., 4 S. & M. (Miss.) 31. 15, 1 Am. C. R. 274 (citing 1 Greenl. 816 hughes' criminal law. § 3110 the instrument of the crime, or the bloody clothes of the person murdered, or any other material fact is discovered, they are competent to show that such discovery was made conformably to the information given by the prisoner.*^ Article V. Declarations of Accused. § 3110. Declarations — ^AU that was said. — It is a general rule of evidence that alleged declarations, made by a prisoner out of court, should be received with extreme caution, because misleading.^" The people having proved statements made by the defendant to a pawn- broker, while attempting to borrow money on a watch alleged to have been stolen, he was entitled to show all that was said, not only as a part of the conversation but as part of the res gestate.^^ The prosecu- tion having given evidence of the declarations of the accused in refer- ence to a homicide, he was entitled to adduce the whole of what he said at the time.°^ "The prosecution having introduced evidence that the accused was in possession of a watch the next day after it was stolen, and evidence of what he said with reference to borrowing money and pledging it as security, as evidence of his guilt, he un- questionably had the right to prove all that was said in that conversa- tion, not only as part of the res gestae, but as part of the conversa- tion."=3 § 3111. Declarations — Res gestae. — Res gestae are the surround- ing facts of a transaction, explanatory of an act as showing motive for acting. They are regarded as verbal facts indicating a present pur- pose. This will include declarations of the accused at the time of fir- ing the shot.^* "Though generally the declarations must be eon- " Gates V. P., 14 111. 437; 1 Greenl. Walker, 77 Me. 488, 1 Atl. 357; Un- Ev., §§ 231, 232; 2 Hawk. P. C, ch. derhill Cr. Ev., § 100; P. v. Gela- 46, § 36; Williams v. Com., 27 Gratt. bert, 39 Cal. 663; Dodson v. S., 86 (Va.) 997, 2 Am. C. R. 70; S. v. Gra- Ala. 60, 5 So. 485; Griswold v. S. ham, 74 N. C. 646, 1 Am. C. R. 183; 24 Wis. 144; S. v. Green, 48 S. C. White V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 338; 136, 26 S. E. 234. P. v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N. W. "" Burns v. S., 49 Ala. 370 1 Am. 539; Duffy y. P., 26 N. Y. 588; Rice C. R. 327; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 218. v. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 215, 1 Green »' Comfort v. P., 54 111. 406; Con- C. R. 370; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick, ner v. S., 34 Tex. 659; S. v. Worth- (Mass.) 496. But see S. v. Garvey, ington, 64 N. C. 594; S. v. William- 28 La. 925, 26 Am. R. 126. son, 106 Mo. 162, 17 S. W. 172 ""Rafferty y. P.. 72 TU. 46; 1 Ros- " Carr v. S., 43 Ark. 99, 5 Am. coe Cr. Ev. 67; 4 HI. Com. 357. C. R. 440; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 108; 1 "1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 43; Comfort v. Bish. Cr. Proc. (3d ed.), §§ 1083- P., 54 111. 406: 1 Greenl. Ey., § 108; 1087; Davidson v. P., 90 111 227- S McDonald v. P., 126 111. 162, 18 N. E. v. Walker, 77 Me. 488, 5 Am. C r" 817; S. V. Daley, 53 Vt. 442; S. v. 465, 1 Atl. 357; Green v. S., 154 Ind. § 3112 EVIDENCE. 817 temporaneoTis with the event, yet, when there are connecting circum- stances they may, even when made some time afterward, form a part of the whole res gestae. Each case must depend upon its faets."^^ At the time of a robbery the defendants ran out of the place wher? the crime was committed, and the person robbed, following immedi- ately in pursuit of them, hollowing that he was robbed, said : "Which way did you see those parties go past here ?" Held competent as part of the res gestae}^ What explanations a person makes while in the ■possession of stolen property, at the time of finding it in his posses- sion, are admissible in evidence as explanatory of the character of his possession and admissible as a part of the res gestae.'^'' § 3112. Declarations to prove motive. — It is well settled that one may prove his own declarations, when made just before or at the time of starting to a particular place, for the purpose of showing his motives or object in going.^' § 3113. Declarations — ^Weight. — A witness for the prosecution tes- tified that the defendant said to him: "You go home, and we will get out by swearing to lies." If this statement was made by the de- fendant it would not justify a conviction, in the absence of other evi- dence connecting him with the homicide."" § 3114. Letters — ^By defendant. — Letters written by the defend- ant, proven to be his writing, and found in his possession after his ar- rest, the contents of which prove motive, are competent, though it is 655, 57 N. E. 637; Underbill Cr. Bv., O'Brien, 92 Mich. 17, 52 N. W. 84; § 330. See P. v. Benham, 63 N. Y. Smith v. S., 21 Tex. App. 277, 17 Supp. 923, 14 N. Y. Cr. 434; S. v. S. W. 471; Evans v. S., 58 Ark. 47, Taylor (Idaho), 61 Pac. 288. 22 S. W. 1026; Lovett v. S., 80 Ga. "Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 255, 4 S. E. 912; S. v. Punshon, 133 (U. S.) 397- S. V. Davis, 104 Tenn. Mo. 44, 34 S. W. 25; Honey cutt v. 501, 58 S.W. 122; Whar. Cr. Bv. (8th S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 806. ed.), § 262; Com. v. Werntz, 161 Pa. "Bow v. P., 160 111. 440, 43 N. E. St. 591, 29 Atl. 272; Com. v. Mc- 593; Healy v. P., 163 111. 380, 45 N. Pike, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 181, 9 Am. C. E. 230; Com. v. Werntz, 161 Pa. St. R. 452; S. v. Garrand, 5 Or. 216; 591, 29 Atl. 272; S. v. Rollins, 113 Blount V. S., 49 Ala. 381, relating N. C. 722, 18 S. E. 394; 1 McClain to declarations of some of the de- Cr. L., § 414; Underhill Cr. Ev., fendants not on trial. See also § 330. Chalk V. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 116, 32 S. "Bennett v. P., 96 III. 607; 1 W. 534; S. V. Bigelow, 101 Iowa 430, Greenl. Ev., § 108. See Bunckley- 70 N. W. 600; S. v. Brown, 28 Or. v. S., 77 Miss. 540, 27 So. 638. 147, 41 Pac. 1042; S. v. Walker, 77 =» Price v. P., 109 111. 113. Me. 488, 1 Atl. 357; Lewis v. S., 29 »» Jones v. P., 166 111. 269, 46 N. Tex. App. 201, 15 S. W. 642; P. v. E. 723. hughes' c. l. — 52 818 hughes' criminal law. § 3115 not proved directly that they had heen delivered to the person ad- dressed."" A letter found on the defendant can be introduced after showing that he invited it and answered it, or in some way acquiesced in its contents."^ A letter written addressed to one of two brothers in business as partners, and intended for both of them, is competent against the accused on a charge of murdering the other brother."* § 3115. Defendant advertising scheme. — On a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, all the facts and circumstances conspired to prove that a number of letters (each containing postage stamps, etc.) were invited and written in answer to a certain false advertise- ment inserted in a newspaper by the accused. Such letters were com- petent evidence against him, though they were intercepted by the post- «ffice officials before they reached the hands of the accused."* Article VI. Declarations of Third Persons. § 3116. Declarations of third persons. — ^Declarations of third par- ties, acting with the defendant at the time of the difficulty, are com- petent."* But extra-judicial statements of third persons can not be proved by hearsay, unless such statements were part of the res gestae.^^ Two witnesses wh& had witnessed an assault, on the next day were together, and on seeing a man passing near the place where it hap- pened, one, calling the attention of the other, said: "There goes the man;" the other replying: "Yes, there he goes." Held com- petent to give these declarations in evidence."" A witness and his wife had a conversation about seeing the horse in the defendant's "» Simons v. P., 150 111. 75, 36 N. E. 208; S. v. Blggerstaff, 17 Mont. 510, 1019; S. v. Stair, 87 Mo. 268; S. v. 43 Pac. 709. Briggs, 68 Iowa 416, 27 N. W. 358; '"' Carlton v. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. P. v. Cassidy, 133 N. Y. 612, 30 N. E. 244; Ex parte Kennedy (Tex". E. 1003; Whar. Ev. (8th ed.), § 1123. Cr.), 57 S. W. 648; Thomas v. P., 67 «'Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), §§ 644, N. Y. 218; S. v. Haynes, 71 N. C. 682, 688; Spies v. P., 122 111. 233, 12 79; S. v. Johnson, 30 La. 921; Reg. N. E. 865, 17 N. B. 898. See 1 Roscoe v. Gibson, 16 Cox C. C. 181, 7 Am. Cr. Ev. 57; P. v. Green, 1 Park. Cr. C. R. 177; Smith v. S., 9 Ala. 990; (N. Y.)ll; P. V. Lee Dick Lung, 129 S. v. Smith, 35 Kan. 618, 11 Pac. Cal. 491, 62 Pac. 71. 908; S. v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483; Owens- "^Westbrook v. P., 126 111. 81, 18 by v. S., 82 Ala. 63, 2 So. 764; Com. N. E. 304. V. Chabbock, 1 Mass. 144; Underbill °» Queen v. Cooper, 1 Q. B. D. 19, Cr. Ev., §§ 101, 331. 3 Am. C. R. 433. " Lander v. P., 104 111. 256. Con- «* Lyons v. P., 137 111. 614, 27 N. E. tra. Rex v. Gibson. 16 Cox C. C. 181, 677; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 331, citing 7 Am. C. E. 171. Johnson v. S., 88 Ga. 203, 14 S. E. § 3117 EVIDENCE. 819 barn one evening, and at a later hour of the same evening the horse was gone. This conversation tending to prove that they were testify- ing about the same evening, was for that purpose admissible.^^ §3117. Conversation of husband and wife overheard. — ^Declara- tions of the wife, made in conversation with her husband on hearing that her son was dead, may be shown in evidence against the husband by third persons who heard such declarations."^ § 3118. Declarations of agent. — Declarations and statements made by an agent are competent against the principal or against the per- son by whom sent, if made by authority of the principal."' § 3119. Declarations in conspiracy. — Declarations made after a conspiracy is over are competent against the party making them, and the court must protect the others by cautioning the jury not to permit the confession of their alleged associate to prejudice them.'" Under the rules of evidence, declarations of other persons jointly charged with an ofEense, made after the act, are not competent against any one who participated in the crime. Such declarations are regarded as any other hearsay testimony. It can not be admitted for any purpose. It is not competent to prove that a crime was in fact committed, nor to connect the defendant with the crime. '^^ § 3120. Defendant's statement taken down. — The record of the examination of the defendant before a justice or examining magis- trate, as well as any oral statements made by him, may be given in evidence against the defendant." Under enabling statutes making the defendant a competent witness if he desires to testify, his testi- mony taken under oath at the preliminary examination, if freely given without compulsion or promise, is admissible in evidence on the "S. V. Ward 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. v. P., 104 111. 534; S. v. Morrow, 40 483, 8 Am. C. R. 217; Whitney v. S. C. 221, 18 S. E. 853, 9 Am. C. R. Houghton, 125 Mass. 451. 43; U. S. v. Morrow, 4 Wash. C. C. " Gannon v. P., 127 111. 518, 21 N. 733. B. 525; Com. v. Griffin, 110 Mass. ™P. v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268, 9 N. 181, 2 Green C. R. 264; Whar. Cr. W. 406. See "Conspiracy." Bv. (8th ed.), § 398; Reynolds v. " S. v. Westfall, 49 Iowa 328, 3 S., 147 Ind. 3, 46 N. E. 31; P. v. Am. C. R. 348. ,„. „ „ Lewis, 62 Hun 622, 16 N. Y. Supp. " S. v. Bowe, 61 Me. 171, 2 Green 881; Underhill Cr. Bv., § 187. C. R. 460; P. v. Banker, 2 Park. Cr. " Isaacs V. P., 118 111. 538, 8 N. E. (N. Y.) 26. 821; Whar. Cr. Ev., § 695; Murphy / 820 hughes' criminal law. § 3121 trial/^ When resort is made to the examination of a prisoner, that examination should be taken down in the precise words used by him, and the language ought not to be changed, as the change of a word may change the character of the confession/* But the taking down of the statement in writing will not bar proving it by parol.'^ Article VII. Hearsay Eviden-ce. § 3121. Declarations, when hearsay. — The opinion of the witness expressed to her husband, in the absence of the prisoner, that the horses were stolen, was clearly incompetent; and the message sent to the sheriff that they had arrested the accused, who had stolen the horses, is of the same character.'® Two or three days after the birth of her child the deceased said to her nurse : ''Oh ! aint it awful, that awful medicine." The nurse said in reply: "Yes, what made you take it?" "The doctor is to blame; he persuaded me to take it." Held to be hearsay.'' § 3122. Hearsay — Husband and wife. — The husband of the de- fendant stated to another that he made his wife kill the deceased, and the defendant offered witnesses to prove that her husband made such declarations. Held incompetent, as being mere hearsay.'* § 3123. By-stander's statement, hearsay. — To permit by-standers to give testimony not under oath is contrary to law in any case and shocking to the mind when such evidence is given against a defendant in a capital ease. Where a Juror trying a case asked a question of , a by-stander as to a matter testified to by a witness, it was highly prejudicial and improper.'" Article VIII. Previous Assaults, Attempts. § 3124. Previous attempts. — Evidence of previous unsuccessful at- tempts to commit the same crime, for which the accused is on trial, is admissible.*" '"Lyons v. P., 137 111. 617, 27 N. "Edwards v. S., 27 Ark. 493, 1 E. 677; Whar. Cr. Ev. (9th ed.), Green C. R. 743; S. v. Clary, 24 S. C. § 699; 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.), § 225; 116. P. V. Kelley, 47 Cal. 125. " Dempsey v. P., 47 111. 324. " Austins V. P., 51 111. 239. =° S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. "1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 4. 483, 8 Am. C. R. 213; Com. v. Jack- " Clark V. P., 31 111. 481. son, 132 Mass. 16; Hamilton v. S. "P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 33 N. (Tex. Cr.), 56 S. W. 926. W. 821, 7 Am. C. R. 356. i 3125 EVIDENCE. 821 §3125. Previous assaults and ill treatment.— Brutal conduct of the accused toward the deceased several days previous to the death is competent as tending to prove motive, and this may be followed up by showing that the deceased was in ordinary health before and that he complained of pains after the assault by the accused.^^ Long ill treatment by a husband of his wife, and violent quarrels between them from time to time, are competent to prove motive in cases of marital homicide, such as threats against her person and life and violent as- saults made upon her at different times while they were living together as husband and wife, and also evidence that tended to prove he com- pelled his wife to procure money for him by pursuing the vocation of a common prostitute.^^ Article IX. Flight as Evidence. § 3126. Evidence of flight. — Testimony of an officer that when he went to arrest the defendant, he outran and for a time escaped him, was admissible without proof that the defendant had been informed that he was to be arrested "on this identical charge." Its force and value, under all the circumstances, were for the jury to determine.'^ § 3127. Rebutting evidence of flight. — ^A defendant offered to prove that he had a conversation with the witness about going away to get a job of work instead of going away to avoid prosecution ; that he made known his intention publicly to several persons, and that he went and got work : Held not error to reject this evidence, the state having introduced no evidence to claim flight or evasion of arrest.** Article X. Defendant's Silence. § 3128. Defendant's silence. — Admissions or confessions may be implied from the conduct of a party in remaining silent when charged with crime, or when statements are made by third persons in his "Williams v. S., 64 Md. 384, 5 614; S. v. Rodman, 62 Iowa 456, 17 Am. C. R. 512, 1 Atl. 887. See N. W. 663; Clarke v. S. (Ala.), 8 "Homicide." Cr. L. Mag. 21; P. v. Ogle, 4 N. Y. == Painter v. P., 147 111. 457, 35 N. Cr. 349; Bell v. S., 115 Ala. 25, 22 E. 64. See also S. v. Bradley, 67 S. B. 526; Hall v. P., 39 Micli. 717. Vt. 465, 32 Atl. 238; Boyle v. S., 61 See Gray v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 53; "Wis. 440, 21 N. W. 289; S. v. Cole, S. v. Lucey (Mont.), 61 Pac. 994; 63 Iowa 695, 17 N. W. 183. Underbill Cr. Ev., § 118. "S. v. Frederic, 69 Me. 400, 3 Am. ''Welcli v. S., 104 Ind. 347, 5 Am. C. R. 80- Sewell v. S., 76 Ga. 836; C. R. 454, 3 N. E. 850. See Under- Saylor v. Com. (Ky.), 57 S. W. hill Cr. Bv., § 119. 822 hughes' criminal law. § 3129 presence afEecting him, when the circumstances afford an opportunity to act or speak in reply. The natural inference is that silence is tantamount to confession.*' If the silence of the accused be attrib- utable to fear, or if it be doubtful whether the statement was distinctly heard by him or understood, or circumstances existed which might prevent a reply or render it improper or inexpedient to reply, then anything said to him imputing his guilt would be entitled to little or no weight ; but its value should be determined by the jury.** § 3129. Defendant's silence, when incompetent. — On a charge of murder the court permitted witnesses to testify that the mother of the accused said in her presence just after the dead body of her child was found, and while the accused was under arrest, that "she had a child this way before and put it away," the prisoner making no re- ply: Held incompetent and prejudicial, being evidence of a distinct and substantive offense.*^ Question by the state: "Heard you any talk of what they (the persons assembled there) would do with the man that killed the woman ? A. Some said to hang him. Q. What threats were made upon that occasion within the hearing of this man? A. While I was there several expressed themselves that he ought to be hung." Held incompetent. No charge was made di- rectly to him that he had killed the woman.** § 3130. Defendant's silence explained. — Where the accused has promised to keep his temper under control at an interview, and let another do the talking, he is not bound to make denial of charges there made against him, and his silence under the circumstances is not competent evidence of guilt.*' Article XI. Articles, Things, Implements. § 3131. Articles and clothing. — Physical objects, such as the bed and bed clothing, in the room where the deceased was killed, and the «= Ackerson v. P., 124 111. 572, 16 ford v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 414, 37 S. W. N. B. 847; 1 Greenl. Ev. (8th ed.), 761; S. v. Good, 132 Mo. 114, 33 S. §§ 197-215; Franklin v. S., 69 Ga. W. 790; P. v. Young, 108 Gal. 8, 41 36; P. V. McCrea, 32 Cal. 98; Under- Pac. 281; S. v. Magoon, 68 Vt. 2£9 hill Cr. Ev., § 122; Gillett Indirect 35 Atl. 310. & Col. Ev., § 5; Kelley v. P., 55 N. '^ S. v. Shuford, 69 N. C. 486, 1 Y. 565, 14 Am. R. 342; 1 Roscoe Cr. Green C. R. 251. Ev. (8th ed.), 89. "Kaelin v. Com., 84 Ky. 354 8 " Ackerson v. P., 124 111. 573, 16 N. Ky. L. 293, 1 S. W. 594, 7 Am. C. R E. 847; 2 Phillipps Ev. 194, note 191; 460. Underhill Cr. Ev., § 124. See Jones ™ Slattery v. P., 76 111. 221; Un- v. S., 107 Ala. 93, 18 So. 237; Willi- derhill Cr. Ev., § 123. § 3132 EVIDENCE. 823 clothes of the deceased and the defendant, are competent to be intro- duced in evidence."" § 3132. Things taken from prisoner. — ^An officer making an arrest of a person charged with a criminal offense may take from him any property or thing connecting or tending to connect the accused with the crime charged, or which may be required as evidence.*^ § 3133. Weapon taken from accused. — The weapon with which it is claimed a homicide was committed may be introduced in evidence against the defendant if found in his possession or the possession of his criminal associates."^ § 3134. Seizing articles illegally. — Though papers and other arti- cles of evidence may have been illegally taken from the possession of the party against whom they are offered, or otherwise unlawfully obtained, this is no valid objection to their admissibility if they are pertinent to the issue, unless the same were unlawfully seized by some order or process of the court, thereby compelling him to produce evidence against himself."^ Articles of property found on the prem- ises of the defendant and seized without search-warrant, may be in- troduced in evidence when otherwise competent, though procured by the trespass of the officer making the arrest, if the state or court had no hand in such unlawful seizure."* "Painter v. P., 147 111. 466, 35 N. 677, 33 N. E. 681; Burton v. S., 107 E. 64; Smith v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 58 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; Thomas v. S., S. W. 101; Keating v. P., 160 111. 487, 67 Ga. 460; S. v. Gushing, 14 Wash. 43 N. B. 724; P. v. Durrant, 116 Gal. 527, 45 Pac. 145; S. v. Tippet, 94 179, 48 Pac. 75, 10 Am. C. R. 523; Iowa 646, 63 N. W. 445; Underbill Mitchell V. S„ 38 Tex. Gr. 170, 41 Cr. Bv., § 315. S. W. 816; Dorsey v. S., 106 Ala. "1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 254; 157, 18 So. 199; Dorsey v. S., 110 Siebert v. P., 143 111. 583, 32 N. E. Ala. 38, 20 So. 450; Newell v. S., 115 431; Gindrat v. P., 138 111. 105, 27 Ala. 54, 22 So. 572; Underbill Cr. N. E. 1085; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. Ev., § 48 616, 6 S. Ct. 524; Trask v. P., 151 "'s. V. Graham, 74 N. G. 646, 1 Am. 111. 529, 38 N. E. 248; Com. v. Dana, C. R. 183; Rex v. O'Donnell, 7 G. & 2 Mete. (Mass.) 329; 1 McClain Cr. P. 138; Siebert v. P., 143 111. 582, 32 L., § 405. N. E. 431; Com. v. Tibbetts, 157 « Gindrat v. P., 138 111. 110, 27 Mass. 519 32 N. E. 910; Underbill N. E. 1085; Shields v. S., 104 Ala. Cr Ev § 48 35, 16 So. 85, 9 Am. G. R. 152; S. ""^ Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, 21 v. Plynn, 36 N. H. 64; Dillon v. So. 214- P. V. Sullivan, 129 Cal. 557, O'Brien, 16 Cox G. C. 245; Com. v. 62 Pac. 101; Siberry v. S., 133 Ind. Dana, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 329. 824 hughes' celminal law. § 3135 § 3135. Defective warrant as evidence. — A warrant by which the officer is attempting to arrest the defendant is competent, though de- fective in not containing the seal of the court, to show why the officer laid his hands on the defendant."" Article XII. Motive; Intention. § 3136. Evidence of motive or feeling. — "Proof of motive is never indispensable to a conviction, but it is always competent against the defendant.'"" On the night before the killing a witness for the state had a quarrel with the defendant and said: "I will see you again and shoot a hole through you that a yellow dog can go through. I am all wool, a yard wide and hard to curry." This statement was competent evidence as showing the motive and feelings of the witness against the defendant and the court erred in excluding it.°' Article XIII. Other Offenses; Acts. § 3137. Evidence of other offenses. — Proof of another distinct of- fense is competent if it in any way tends to prove the accused guilty of the crime for which he is on trial; or where there is such a logical connection between the two that the one tends to establish the other, or where the two acts form but one transaction; or to prove mo- tive and intent.®* In an indictment for stealing pork, a loaf of bread »» Palmer v. P., 138 111. 364, 28 N. ""Lyons v. P., 137 111. 612, 27 N. E. 130. B. 677; Scott v. P., 141 111. 213, 30 ""Stltz V. S., 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. E. N. B. 329; Hickam v. P., 137 111. 80, 145, 5 Am. C. R. 50; S. v. Battle, 126 27 N. E. 88; West v. S. (Fla.), N. C. 1036, 35 S. B. 624; 1 Bisli. Cr. 28 So. 430; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 53; P. Proc. (3d ed.), § 1107; Wills Cir. v. Pallister, 138 N. Y. 601, 33 N. E. Ev. 41; Clifton v. S., 73 Ala. 473; 741; Com. v. Sawtelle, 141 Mass. Pointer v. U. S., 151 U. S. 396, 14 S. 140, 5 N. E. 312; Maynard v. P., 135 Ct. 410; S. V. Aughtry, 49 S. C. 285, 111. 432, 25 N. B. 740; Underbill Cr. 26 S. B. 619, 27 S. E. 199; Miller Bv., § 321; Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. V. S., 68 Miss. 221, 8 So. 273; P. v. 57, 14 S. Ct. 26; Thomas v. S., 103 Bennett, 49 N. Y. 137; Johnson v. Ind. 419, 2 N. E. 808; 3 Greenl. Ev., U. S., 157 U. S. 320, 15 S. Ct. 614; § 15; Bloomer v. S., 48 Md. 521, 3 Sumner v. S., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 579, Am. C. R. 41; Com. v. Choate, 105 36 Am. D. 561; P. v. Durrant, 116 Mass. 451; S. v. Walton, 114 N. C. Cal. 179, 48 Pac. 75, 10 Am. C. R. 783, 18 S. E. 945; Underhill Cr. Bv., 621; S. v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 665, 33 § 90; S. v. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425, Pac. 287; Turner v. S., 70 Ga. 765; 59 N. W. 490. See also S. v. Kent, Com. V. McManus, 143 Pa. St. 64, 21 5 N. D. 516, 67 N. W. 1052; P. v. Atl. 1018, 22 Atl. 761; S. v. Lentz, 45 Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 N. B. 65; Minn. 180, 47 N. W. 720. WlUingham v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 98, 25 "Bonnard v. S., 25 Tex. App. 173, S. W. 424; S. v. Seymour, 94 Iowa 7 S. W. 862, 7 Am. C. R. 464; Gaines 699, 63 N. W. 661; Com. v. Corkin, v. Com.. 50 Pa. St. 319, 326; 1 136 Mass. 430; Lamb v. S., 66 Md. Greenl. Ev. (13th ed.), § 455. 287, 7 Atl. 399; Farris v. P., 129 111. § 3138 EVIDENCE. 825 and some knives, it appeared that the accused entered a shop and ran away with the pork and in a few minutes returned and put the pork in a bowl which contained the knives and took away the whole to- gether, and in half an hour returned and took the bread : Held that the taking of the bread was a distinct ofEense, and evidence of the taking of the bread was incompetent under the indictment.®' § 3138. Other offenses to prove intent. — It is not a valid objection to evidence, otherwise competent, that it tends to prove the prisoner guilty of a distinct and different oifense. Evidence of other offenses is admissible to prove latent, motive, knowledge, malice and the like."" § 3139. Other offenses, when incompetent. — The general rule is that evidence tending to prove other independent distinct offenses: than that alleged in the indictment is incompetent and is reversible error, even in a clear case of guilt, on the measure of punishment, where the punishment is fixed by the jury.^ § 3140. Evidence of other acts. — On a charge of attempting to, poison a person by putting poison in his cup, it is proper to show in 521, 21 N. E. 821; Reg. v. Cobden, 6 N. E. 769; Maynard v. P., 135 111. 3 F. & F. 833; P. v. Dailey, 143 N. 432, 25 N. B. 740; TJnderhill Cr. Ev., Y. 638, 37 N. E. 823, 73 Hun 16, 25 § 89. N. Y. Supp. 1050; 1 Greenl. Bv., 'Barton v. P., 135 III. 405, 25 N. § 108; Snapp v. Com., 82 Ky. 173, E. 776; Farris v. P., 129 111. 521, 6 Am. C. R. 187; Swan v. Com., 104 21 N. B. 821; Aiken v. P., 183 111. Pa. St. 218, 4 Am. C. R. 188; S. v. 215, 221, 55 N. B. 695; Baker v. 'P., Vines, 34 La. 1079, 4 Am. C. R. 298; 105 111. 45-2; 1 Blsh. Cr. Proc. (3d Williams v. P., 166 111. 134, 46 N. ed.), § 1120; 1 Thomp. Trials, § 330; E. 749; S. v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105; S. v. Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 26 S. S. V. Greenwade, 72 Mo. 300, 20 Am. W. 364; Jackson v. P., 126 111. 148, L. Reg. 552; Dawson v. S., 32 Tex. 18 N. E. 286; GifCord v. P., 87 111. Cr. 535, 25 S. W. 21; Frazier v. S., 214; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 52; Shears v. 135 Ind. 38, 34 N. E. 817; P. v. Bidle- S., 147 Ind. 51, 46 N. E. 331; S. v. man, 104 Cal. 608, 38 Pac. 502; Com. Stice, 88 Iowa 27, 55 N. W. 17, 9 V. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571, 16 N. Am. C. R. 363; S. v. Lapage, 57 N. E. 452; S. v. Gainor, 84 Iowa 209, H. 245, 2 Am. C. R. 559; Shaffner 50 N. W. 947; Underbill Cr. Ev., v. Com., 72 Pa. St. 60, 2 Green C. R. § 88 508; Clapp v. S., 94 Tenn. 186, 30 =» Snapp V. Com., 82 Ky. 173, 6 S. W. 214; S. v. Jeffries, 117 N. C. Am. C. R. 189. 727, 23 S. E. 163; P. v. Fowler, 104 ™S. V. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216, 20 Mich. 449, 62 N. W. 572; Tyrrell v. Atl. 6, 8 Am. C. R. 199; S. v. Kepper, S. (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 1011; S. v. 65 Iowa 745, 5 Am. C. R. 594, 23 Murphy, 84 N. C. 742; Com. v. Jack- N. W. 304; Ter. V. McGinnis (N. M.), son, 132 Mass. 16; S. v. Kelley, 65 61 Pac. 208; Com. v. Corki^, 136 Vt. 531, 27 Atl. 203; Meyer v. S., 59 Mass. 429; Com. v. Choate, 105 Mass. N. J. L. 310. 36 Atl. 483. 451; Com. v. Blood, 141 Mass. 575, 826 hughes' criminal law. § 3141 evidence that a few days before on different occasions similar substance was found in his cup and saucer and that drinking from the cup made him siclc.^ Other acts than those alleged in the indictment may be shown in evidence for the purpose of showing the system or plan of the parties concerned in the , transaction alleged in the indict- ment.' Where other overt acts, different and distinct from that al- leged in the indictment, form part of the res gestae^ they may be given in evidence.* But evidence of distinct offenses, not forming part of the same transaction charged, is not part of the res gestae, and is therefore incompetent.** Article XIV. Expekiments^ When" Peopee. § 3141. Evidence of experiments. — Experiments will not be per- mitted on the trial to contradict witnesses on material matters with- out first showing that the surroundings where the assault is alleged to have occurred were in identically the same condition as on the day of the difficulty.^ Evidence of experiments is likely to confuse and mislead the jury unless made with like means on the same kind of stuff or substance, or based on a similarity of conditions or circum- stances, as the act or fact sought to be illustrated. Such evidence, under proper circumstances, is competent.® § 3142. Experiments by jury. — Permitting a pistol, which had been exhibited to the Jury during the trial, but not put in evidence, to be sent to them without the consent of the accused, was improper, and especially so in that the jury experimented with it while considering of their verdict. The pistol should have been identified.'' = Com. V. Kennedy, 170 Mass. 18, 'P. v. Deitz, 86 Mich. 419, 49 N. 48 N. E. 770. See P. v. Cuff, 122 Cal. "W. 296; Jumpertz v. P., 21 111. 375; 589, 55 Pac. 407. 1 McClain Cr. L., § 407. "Com. V. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) " S. v. Justus, 11 Or. 178, 8 Pac. 472; S. V. Bridgman, 49 Vt. 202; 337, 6 Am. C. R. 516; Sullivan v. Whar. Cr. Ev., § 38; Kramer v. Com., 93 Pa. St. 285; Com. v. Piper, Com., 87 Pa. St. 299; Thayer v. 120 Mass. 188; Smith v. S., 2 Ohio Thayer, 101 Mass. Ill; Guthrie v. St. 513; Reg. v. Heseltine, 12 Cox S., 16 Neb. 667, 21 N. W. 455, 4 Am. C. C. 404, 1 Green C. R. 106; P. v. C. R. 78; Reg. v. Francis, 12 Cox Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 22 Pac. 969, 24 C. C. 612. .Pac. 631; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 233; * McDonald v. P., 126 111. 150, 18 Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 66; N. E. 817; Reed v. Com., 98 Va. Starr v. P. (Colo., 1900), 63 Pac. 817, 36 S. E. 399. 299 (conversation). 'a. S. V. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 ' Yates v. P., 38 111. 531. Pac. 892; S. v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 S. "W. 881. § 3143 EVIDENCE. 827 'Article XV. Best Evidence; Documents. § 3143. Document— Record is best evidence.— The contents of a letter or other writing, which becomes material in proving the issues involved, can not be shown by oral testimony or by copy, until it is first shown that the original can not be produced or accounted for, the original being the best evidence.^ The best evidence to prove autre fois convict or autre fois acquit is the record of the court pro- ceedings or a properly certified copy of such record, where provided for by statute.® § 3144. Best evidence — ^Minor's age. — Where the age of a minor becomes a material fact to be shown in a case the minor is a compe- tent witness by whom to prove the fact of his age, even though his parents are living; nor is the entry of the age of the minor in the family Bible necessary to constitute the best evidence.^" § 3145. Best evidence as to telegrams. — "Where the receiver of a telegraphic dispatch is the employer of the company, the writing de- livered to the company's operator by the sender is the original. But where the company is the agent, not of the receiver, but of the sender of the dispatch, the written message which is delivered to the addressee is the original."^^ Article XVI. Former Conviction, Evidence. § 3146. Former conviction and other offense. — On the trial of an indictment charging the accused with a former conviction, together with a subsequent criminal offense, the issues on both charges will be tried and submitted to the jury at the same time, unless otherwise provided by statute.^^ Where the indictment charges the accused with a former conviction, as well as a subsequent criminal offense, it must be clearly established on the trial that he is the identical person 'S. V. Matthews, 88 Mo. 121; Un- "Underbill Cr. Bv., § 44, citing derhlll Cr. Ev., § 43, citing Peck v. S. v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. Parchen, 52 Iowa 46, 2 N. W. 597. "W. 39; Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. ' Brown v. S., 72 Miss. 95, 16 So. S. 29. See Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. 202; Walter v. S., 105 Ind. 589, 5 S. 185, 195, 15 S. Ct. 325. N.E. 735; Underbill Cr.Bv., § 195. ^"S. v. Manicke, 139 Mo. 545, 41 " S. v. Woods, 49 Kan. 237, 30 Pac. S. W. 223; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 512. 520; Dobson v. Cotbran, 34 S. C. See Reg. v. Pox, 10 Cox C. C. 502. 518, 13 S. B. 679. 828 hughes' criminal law. § 3147' mentioned in the record of such former conviction, but direct evidence of that fact is not necessary.^^ § 3147. Former conviction — Becord essential. — The record of a former conviction or acquittal, or a properly certified copy thereof, where authorized by statute, is the only competent evidence of such former conviction or acquittal.^* Where a record of a former con- viction is relied on to prove such conviction it must show the caption, the returning of an indictment by the grand jury, the arraignment, the impaneling or waiver of the jury, a verdict and judgment on the verdict.^^ Article XVII. Eecord Evidence. § 3148. Foreign records. — Exemplification of judgments of courts, of record of other states, to be admissible under the act of congress, must be attested by the clerk under the seal of the court, with the. certificate of the presiding judge that the attestation of the clerk is in due form.^° If the exemplification of the record of a ease tried in a foreign state shows a yvant of jurisdiction to render judgment or decree, such record evidence is not competent.^' § 3149. Proving records by copy. — The general doctrine, as stated by all the text-writers, substantially is, that records and entries of a public nature, in books required by law to be kept, may be proved by an examined copy and by a certified copy where the officer having charge of the record is authorized by law to make copies to be used as evidence, both for the sake of convenience and because of the public character of the facts they contain and the ease with which any fraud or error in the copy can be detected.^^ "=8. V. Haynes, 35 Vt. 570; Reg. v. "Klrby v. P., 123 111. 438, 15 N. Leng, 1 F. & F. 77; Kane v. Com., E. 33; Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 109 Pa. St. 541. 609; Plumbly v. Com., 2 Mete. "Walter v. S., 105 Ind. 589, 5 N. (Mass.) 413; P. v. Carlton, 57 Cal. B. 735; Bailey v. S., 26 Ga. 579; 83; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 510. See Com. V. Evans, 101 Mass. 25; Brown Wood v. P., 53 N. Y. 511. V. S., 72 Miss. 95, 16 So. 202; Com. I'Ducommun v. Hysinger, 14 111. v. Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315, 23 N. E. 249; Spencer v. Langdon, 21 111. 193; 47; S. V. Farmer, 84 Me. 436, 24 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 169; Wilburn v. Atl. 985; S. v. Merriman, 34 S. C. Hall, 16 Mo. 168. 16, 12 S. E. 619; S. v. Adamson, 43 "Tucker v. P., 122 111. 594, 13 N. Minn. 196, 45 N. W. 152; S. v. Pratt, E. 809. 121 Mo. 566, 26 S. W. 556; Boyd " S. v. Frederic, 69 Me. 400, 3 Am. V. S., 94 Tenn. 505, 29 S. W. 901; C. R. 79; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 40. S. v. Alexis, 45 La. 973, 13 So. 394; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 514. § 3150 EVIDENCE. 829 § 3150. Documents, as collateral evidence. — Sometimes the con- tents of a book, document or writing have no direct bearing upon the material matters of fact in issue, but are merely evidence of some collateral fact; in such case oral evidence is competent to prove such collateral fact contained in the document or writing. For example, where proof of arrest of the defendant on some other charge than that for which he is on trial is competent, such arrest may be shown by the oral testimony of the officer who made the arrest without producing •the warrant; or the fact that the prosecutrix in a seduction case made an assignation by a letter, may be shown by oral testimony ■■without the production of the letter.^* § 3151. Ordinance as evidence. — The proof failing to show that an ordinance was submitted to the voters of the town, and published as required by ordinance, is not competent evidence.^", Article XVIII. Defendant's Chaeacter. § 3152. Good character of defendant. — In all criminal cases evi- dence of good character is admissible on the part of the accused, whether the case is doubtful or not.^^ Evidence of the general reputa- tion of the accused for peace and quiet is permissible in a prosecution for murder, though the murder may have been committed by poison- jjjg_22 rpjjg qI^ j^jg j-Y^g^j- evidence of the good character of the de- " S. v. McFarlain, 42 La. 803, 8 So. 43 Iowa 294; S. v. Schleagel, 50 Kan. 600; S. V. Ferguson, 107 N. C. 841, 325, 31 Pac. 1105; Glllett Indirect & 12 S. E. 574. See also Long v. S., Col. Bv., § 298; Rex v. Stannard. 7 10 Tex. App. 186, 198; Tatum v. S., C. & P. 673; Hardtke v. S., 67 Wis. 82 Ala. 5, 2 So. 531. 552, 30 N. W. 723; Edgington v. U. =°Scliott V. P., 89 111. 197. S., 164 U. S. 361, 17 S. Ct. 72; Pate =' Jupitz V. P., 34 111. 521; Steele v. S., 94 Ala. 14, 10 So. 665; Gibson v. V. P., 45 111. 157; Hopps v. P., 31 S., 89 Ala. 121, 18 Am. St. 96, 8 So. 111. 388; p. V. Vane, 12 Wend. (N. 98. See also Com. v. Cleary, 135 Y.) 78; Aneals v. P., 134 111. 401, 25 Pa. St. 64, 19 Atl. 1017; Com. v. N. B. 1022; Com. v. Hardy, 2 Mass. Wilson, 152 Mass. 12, 25 N. E. 16; 317; Com. v. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, Wesley v. S., 37 Miss. 327, 75 Am. 7 Am. C. R. 598, 4 N. E. 96; Hall v. D. 62; S. v. Ward, 73 Iowa 532, 35 S., 132 Ind. 317, 31 N. E. 536; Kist- N. W. 617; S. v. Hice, 117 N. C. 782, ler V. S., 54 Ind. 400, 2 Am. C. R. 23 S. E. 357; Parrish v. Com., 81 21; Kee v. S., 28 Ark. 155, 2 Am. Va. 1; S. v. Levigne, 17 Nev. 435, C. R. 271; 1 Greenl. Bv., § 55; 3 30 Pac. 1084; Klehn v. Ter., 1 Wash. Greenl. Ev., § 25; Fields v. S., 47 St. 584, 21 Pac. 31; P. v. Harrison, Ala. 603, 1 Green C. R. 639; Stewart 93 Mich. 594, 53 N. W. 725; S. v. V. S., 22 Ohio St. 477, 1 Green C. R. Donohoo, 22 W. Va. 761; S. v. Henry, 531; P. V. Ashe 44 Cal. 288, 2 Green 5 Jones (N. C.) 65. C. R. 401; S. V. McMiirphy, 52 Mo. =^ Hall v. S., 132 Ind. 317, 31 N. 251, 1 Green C. R. 640; S. v. Kinley, E. 536; Carr v. S., 135 Ind. 1, 34 830 hughes' criminal law. § 3153 fendant is not to be considered by the jury unless the other evidence leaves their minds in doubt, has been much criticised, and the weight of authority is now against it.''' But when all the evidence, taken to- gether, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be convicted, notwithstanding the evidence may clearly show that he had a good character for honesty and integrity, etc., be- fore the commission of the crime.^* § 3153. How to prove character — Character never questioned. — A defendant may prove his good character only by general reputa- tion, and not by particular acts and transactions in which he may have been concerned.^' To prove the general reputation of the person for or against whom the witness is called to testify he must first state that he knows what is said of him by "those among whom he is chiefly conversant."^' The proper inquiry is whether the witness knows the general reputation of the person sought to be im- peached or sustained, among his or her neighbors, for truth and veracity, which question must be answered in the affirmative before asking what that reputation is.^' Evidence that the witness has long been acquainted with the defendant, or person whose character is at issue, and that he never heard it questioned, is competent, and to refuse such evidence is error.''' § 3154. Character — ^Weight as evidence. — ^In a case involving much doubt, the good character of the accused is entitled to great N. E. 533, 9 Am. C. R. 81. See 3 Bl. " Magee v. P., 139 111. 142, 28 N. Com. 120; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 84; Ros- E. 1077; 1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), coe Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), 296. § 461. '^ Com. V. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, " Gifford v. P., 148 111. 176, 35 N. 4 N. E. 96, 7 Am. C. R. 599; S. v. B. 754; Gifford v. P., 87 111. 210; Llndley, 51 Iowa 343, 1 N. W. 484; Laclede Bank v. Keeler, 109 111. 385. Whar. Cr. Ev. (9th ed.), § 66; 3 "Gifford v. P., 148 111. 173, 35 N. Greenl. Ev., § 25. E. 754; S. v. Bryan, 34 Kan. 63, 8 « Wagner v. S., 107 Ind. 71, 7 Pac. 260, 7 Am. C. R. 613; Lemons N. B. 896; S. v. Smith, 9 Houst. v. S., 4 W. Va. 755, 1 Green C. R. (Del.) 588, 33 Atl. 441; S. v. Brown, 669; Flemister v. S., 81 Ga. 768, 7 34 S. C. 41, 48, 12 S. B. 662. S. E. 642; Hussey v. S., 87 Ala. 121, ^'Hirshman v. P., 101 111. 574; 1 6 So. 420; Cole v. S., 59 Ark. 50, 26 Greenl. Ev., § 55; Evans v. S., 109 S. W. 377; Bucklin v. S., 20 Ohio Ala. 11, 19 So. 535; S. v. Rose, 47 18; S. v. Grate. 68 Mo. 22, 3 Am. Minn. 47, 49 N. W. 404; Basye v. C. R. 324; Lenox v. Fuller, 39 Mich. S., 45 Neb. 261, 63 JST. W. 811; S. v. 268; Berneker v. S., 40 Neb. 810, 59 Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. R. N. W. 372; S. v. Pearce, 15 Nev. 188; 69; S. V. McGee, 81 Iowa 17, 46 N. S. v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 2 Am. C. W. 764; Stalcup v. S., 146 Ind. 270, R. 63; S. v. Brandenburg, 118 Mo. 45 N. B. 334; Garner v. S., 28 Fla. 181, 23 S. W. 1080; P. v. Davis, 21 113. 9 So. 835, 29 Am. R. 232. Wend. (N. Y.) 309. § 3155 EVIDENCE. 831 weight."* Good character may, and no doubt often does, create such a reasonable doubt as will justify an acquittal.^" § 3155. Defendant's bad character, — The bad character of the de- fendant can not be put in issue by the prosecution, except where it ia relevant: (1) as part of the res gestae; (2) as part of a system; (3) to prove guilty knowledge; (4) to prove intention; (5) to prove identity.^^ It is a fundamental principle of the criminal law that the character of a defendant can not be impeached or attacked by the state unless he puts his character in issue, either by becoming a wit- ness in his own behalf or by offering evidence in support of his char- acter.^^ The defendant was tried on a charge of murder. After the introduction of the evidence for the defense, the prosecution was per- mitted, over objection, to prove that her general character for chas- tity was bad. Held erroneous, the nature of the charge not involv- ing an inquiry into her character for chastity ; and she had offered no evidence as to her character in any respect.^' § 3156. Defendant's character presumed good. — Where a person is charged with crime, the failure to call witnesses to prove his gen- eral good character raises no presumption .against it.^* §3157. Defendant's disposition. — It has been held that the dis- position of the accused for peace and quietness may be shown in evi- " Walsh v. P., 65 III. 64. See E. 268; P. v. Sweeney, 133 N. Y. Jackson v. S., 81 Wis. 127, 51 N. W. 609, 30 N. E. 1005. 89; Jupltz V. P., 34 III. 522; P. v. ='Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 65; Vane, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 78; P. v. S. v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Hurley, 60 Cal. 74, 44 Am. R. 55; R. 69-75. Aiken v. P., 183 111. 215, 55 N. E. " S. v. Hull, 18 R. I. 207, 26 Atl. 695. 191, 10 Am. C. R. 428; P. v. Fair, 43 ^Aneals v. P., 134 111. 415, 25 N. Cal. 137, 1 Green C. R. 221; S. v. B. 1022; Wagner v. S., 107 Ind. 71, Creson, 38 Mo. 372; S. v. Lapage, 57 7 N. E. 896, 57 Am. R. 79; Newsom N. H. 245, 290; Young v. Com., 6 V. S., 107 Ala. 133, 18 So. 206; S. v. Bush (Ky.) 312, 316; Reg. v. Row- Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 68 N. W. 11; ton, 10 Cox C. C. 25, 30; 3 Greenl. P. V. Brooks, 131 N. Y. 321, 30 N. Ev., § 25; Underhill Cr. Bv., §§ 66, E. 189, 15 N. Y. Supp. 362, 61 Hun 78. 619; P. V. Van Dam, 107 Mich. 425, "P. v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137, 1 Green 65 N. W. 277; P. v. Hancock, 7 C. R. 217. Utah 170, 25 Pac. 1093; S. v. Lind- ** S. v. Dockstader, 42 Iowa 436, ley, 51 Iowa 343, 1 N. W. 484, 33 2 Am. C. R. 470; Dryman v. S., 102 Am. R. 139; Com. v. Wilson, 152 Ala. 130, 15 So. 433; S. v. Upham, Mass. 12, 25 N. E. 16; S. v. Daley, 53 38 Me. 26i; Donoghoe V. P., 6 Park. Vt, 442, 38 Am. R. 694; S. v. Lep- Cr. (N. Y.) 120; S. v. Saunders, 84 pere, 66 Wis. 355, 28 N. W. 376; N. C. 728; Olive v. S., 11 Neh. 1, 7 Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. N. W. 444; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 76. 214; Redd v. S., 99 Ga. 210, 25 g. 832 hughes' criminal law. § 3158 dence by apy one who knows it ; that such disposition is quite as sat- isfactory evidence as general repute; that general repute is only evi- dence of disposition.^^ § 3158. Defendant's character — How rebutted. — When the de- fendant chooses to call witnesses to prove his general character to be good, the prosecution may offer witnesses to disprove their testimony.'® But the rebuttal evidence offered by the prosecution must go to the general reputation of the defendant, and not by particular acts of misconduct. To permit such rebuttal by particular acts is error.'^ The prosecution in rebuttal may prove that the deceased was of a peaceable character.'* The defendant gave evidence of his good character, by general reputation ; the prosecution in rebuttal was per- mitted to give in evidence particular acts of misconduct or crime, and rumors and reports against him. Held error.'' If the prosecution brings out on cross-examination particular acts of a witness on the character of the defendant, the defense can not show what in detail did occur, being collateral.*" Article XIX. Chaeactek of Deceased. § 3159. Reputation, specific acts. — Specific acts of violence by the deceased are not competent to prove his general reputation for quar- relsomeness and vindictiveness.*^ "Where homicide is committed under such circumstances that it is doubtful whether the act was committed maliciously, or from well-grounded apprehension of dan- ger, it is very proper that the jury should consider the fact that the deceased was turbulent, violent and desperate, and in the habit of "S. V. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 2 Am. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342; Nelson v. C. R. 63. Contra, Small v. Com., 91 S., 32 Fla. 244, 13 So. 361; Drew v. Pa. St. 304, 1 Cr. L. Mag. 335; VogM S., 124 Ind. 9, 23 N. E. 1098. See V. S., 145 Ind. 12, 43 N. B. 1049; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 82; P. v. Elliott, Underbill Cr. Bv., § 85. 163 N. Y. 11, 57 N. E. 103, 60 N. Y. "" P. v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137, 1 Green Supp. 1145. C. R. 221; Cluck v. S., 40 Ind. 263, "Aneals v. P., 134 111. 412, 25 N. 1 Green C. R. 735; 3 Greenl. Ev., E. 1022. See UnderhlU Cr. Ev., §5 24-26; 2 Russell Cr. 785; Com. v. § 82. Hardy, 2 Mass. 317. " Ferrel v. Com., 15 Ky. L. 321, 23 s'McCarty v. P., 51 111. 231; Aiken S. W. 344; P. v. Powell, 87 Cal. 348, V. P., 183 111. 215, 221, 55 N. E. 695; 25 Pac. 481; S. v. Jones, 134 Mo. Stitz V. S., 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. E. 145, 254, 35 S. W. 607; Garrett v. S., 97 5 Am. C. R. 48. Ala. 18, 14 So. 327; P. v. Druse, 103 » Davis V. P., 114 111. 86, 29 N. N. Y. 655, 8 N. E. 733; Groom v. S., B. 192. 90 Ga. 430, 17 S. E. 1003. =»McCarty v. P., 51 111. 231; Com. § 3160 EVIDENCE. 833 carrying arms, in determining whether the accused had reasonable cause to apprehend great personal injury to himself."*^ Article XX. Sustaininq Evidence, § 3160. Prosecution sustaining witness. — Permitting the prose- cution to call witnesses and prove or attempt to prove the general reputation of the prosecutrix to be good is not only improper, but erroneous, in a case of rape, where the evidence is close or the facts conflicting.*^ The prosecution is not entitled to introduce original evidence as to the character of the deceased for peace and quietness.** Article XXI. Compelling Defendant to Furnish Evidence. § 3161. Exhibiting scar. — The prosecuting witness testified that the defendant shot him on the arm. It is proper, on request, to re- quire him to exhibit his arm to the jury ; and it is error to refuse the request.*" § 3162. Production of books. — The statute does not give the right to compel the submission of the books of a party to general inspection or examination for fishing purposes, or with a view to find evidence to be used in other suits or prosecutions.*' § 3163. Defendant compelled to give evidence, — Evidence that a witness forcibly placed defendant's foot in certain tracks near the scene of the burglary, and that they were of the same size, is not ad- missible. A defendant can not be compelled to criminate himself by acts or words. Nor has the court any right to compel the defendant "S. V. Keene, 50 Mo. 358; P. v. S. C. 249, 26 S. E. 567; UnderhiU Harris, 95 Mich. 87, 54 N. W. 648; Cr. Bv., § 324. Horbach v. S., 43 Tex. 242, 1 Am. "Gifford v. P., 148 111. 176, 35 N. C. R. 333; TifCany v. Com., 121 Pa. E. 754. St. 165, 15 Atl. 462; Keener v. S., " S. v. Potter, 13 Kan. 414; Ben 18 Ga. 221; S. v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. v. S., 37 Ala. 103; P. v. Bezy, 67 Cal. 446; P. V. Murray, 10 Cal. 309; Gard- 223, 7 Pac. 643; S. v. Eddon, 8 Wash, ner v. S., 90 Ga. 310, 35 Am. St. 202, 292, 36 Pac. 139. 17 S. B. 86. See Brownell v. P., 38 "King v. S., 100 Ala. 85, 14 So. Mich. 732; S. v. Graham, 61 Iowa 878. See UnderhiU Cr. Ev., §§ 53, 608, 16 N. W. 743; Allen v. S., 38 54. Pla. 44 20 So. 807; P. v. Stock, 1 "Lester v. P., 150 111. 408, 420, 2a. Idaho 218; Smith v. U. S., 161 U. S. N. B. 387, 37 N. E. 1004; Cutter v. 85, 16 S. Ct. 483; Alexander V. Com., Pool, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 311; 105 Pa. St. 1; S. v. Keefe, 54 Kan. Whitman v. Weller, 39 Ind. 515; 2 197, 38 Pac. 302; P. v. Druse, 103 Best on Ev., § 625. N. Y. 655, 8 N. E. 733; S. v. Dill, 48 hughes' c. l. — 53 834 hughes' ckiminal law. § 3164 to stand up and exhibit his person in any respect, in reference to how or where his leg was amputated.^^ Article XXII. Evidence on Insanity. § 3164. Evidence on insanity. — Evidence of the acts, conduct and statements of the accused, after as well as before the homicide, may be shown in evidence as tending to show the mental condition of the accused, whether sane or insane.*' § 3165. Insanity — ^Medical experts. — Any practicing physician and surgeon who has had experience in treating cases of insanity is a competent witness to give his opinion on the question of the sanity or insanity of a person, although he has not made insanity a special study.** '§ 3166. Insanity — Common witness competent. — A common or non-expert witness is competent to testify to the mental state of a person, whether sane or insane, and may give his opinion on the question. But he must first state the facts within his knowledge, upon which he bases his opinion. A non-expert witness can not give an opinion on facts related to him by somebody else.^" § 3167. Insanity — Eepu:ted to be insane. — ^Insanity as a defense can not be shown by evidence that the accused was generally reputed ■"Blackwell v. S., 67 Ga. 76, 4 "Underbill Cr. Ev., i 163, citing Am. C. R. 184; S. v. Jacobs, 5 Jones S. v. Reddick, 7 Kan. 143, 151. (N. C.) 259; Uhderhill Cr. Ev., §§ 58, "Phelps v. Com., 17 Ky. L. T06, 337. Contra, P. v. Gardner, 144 N. 32 S. W. 470; P. v. Strait, 148 N. Y. T. 119, 38 N. E. 1003, 9 Am. C. R. 566, 42 N. E. 1045; Ragland v. S., :S7. See "Witnesses." 125 Ala. 12, 27 So. 983; Blume v. S., « French v. S., 93 Wis. 325, 67 N. 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. 771; Herndon "W. 706, 10 Am. C. R. 617; Blume v. v. S., Ill Ga. 178, 36 S. E. 634; Hick- S., 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. B. 771 (let- man v. S., 38 Tex. 190; P. v. Casey ters); S. v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333, 22 (Mich.), 82 N. W. 883; S. v. Wil- Pac. 241; P. v. Wood, 126 N. Y. 249, liamson, 106 Mo. 162, 17 S. W. 172; 27 N. B. 362; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 371; S. v. Pennyman, 68 Iowa 216, 26 N. S. V. Newman, 57 Kan. 705, 47 Pac. W. 82; Armstrong v. S., 30 Pla. 170, 881; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 159; S. v. 11 So. 618; S. v. Genz, 57 N. J. L. Kelley, 57 N. H. 549, 3 Am. C. R. 232; 459, 31 Atl. 1037; Ellis v. S., 33 Tex. S. V. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 2 Am. C. R. Cr. 86, 24 S. W. 894; S. v. Cross, 72 ■S15; U. S. V. Guiteau, 10 Fed. 161, Conn. 722, 46 Atl. 148; Gillett In- 168. See Com. v. Buceieri, 153 Pa. direct & Col. Ev., § 214. But see S. St. 535, 26 Atl. 228; Ragland v. S., v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222, 56 S. W. 125 Ala. 12, 27 So. 983 (letter). See 734. See § 3080; also "Witnesses;" ■"Defenses." "Defenses." § 3168 EVIDENCE. 835 to be of unsound mind or that his reputation was that of a person of unsound mind, before the crime charged against him.^^ Article XXIII. Previous Threats. § 3168. Previous threats by defendant. — That evidence of pre- vious threats made by the defendant is competent is too well settled to admit of serious discussion, and such threats may be shown during a long period of time.^^ But it has been held that evidence of threats previously uttered is a kind of evidence which, under many circum- stances, ought to be received with caution.°^ § 3169. TTncommunicated threats by deceased. — The decided jRreight of authority holds that evidence of uncommunicated threats made by the deceased against the defendant is incompetent.^* Evi- dence of threats to hang the accused, which he did not hear or know, iiould not have explained his conduct or movements, and hence it is not error to reject the same.^° § 3170. Com;aiiuiicate,d threats by deqeased.^ — Evidence that the day before the killing the defendant had been pursued by -the father of the deceased, armed with a deadly weapon, seeking to take his life, threatening to kill him on sight, was competent in mitigation of pun- ishment, and it was held error to refuse it."** Article XXIV. Evidence, Where Several Defendants. . § 3171. Evidence competent against some defendants. — Evidence competent as to part of the defendants, and not competent as to the "Brinkley v. S., 58 Ga. 296; P. v. 497; "Wilson v. S., 110 Ala. 1, 20 So. Pico, 62 Cal. 50; Cannon v. S. (Tex. 415; Allen v. S;, 111 Ala. 80, 20 So. Cr.), 57 S. W. 351. See Walker v. 490; S. v. Larkins (Idaho), 47 Pac. S., 102 Ind. 502, 1 N. E. 856; Choice 945; Mathis v. S., 34 Tex. Cr. 39, 28 V. S., 31 Ga. 424; Underbill Cr. Bv., S. W. 817; Underhill Cr. Bv., § 328; § 160. Contra, S. v. Windsor, 5 Har. S. v. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 Pac. (Del.) 512. 356, 5 Am. C. R. 543. '' Painter v. P., 147 111. 462, 35 N. '» Raflerty v. P., 72 111. 44. B. 64; S. V. Edwards, 34 La. 1012; " S. v. Elliott, 45 Iowa 486, 2 Am. Jones V. S., 64 Ind. 473; P. v. Duck, C. R. 326. See Burns v. S., 49 Ala. 61 Cal. 387; Everett v. S., 62 Ga. 65; 370, 1 Am. C. R. 329; S. v. Gregor, Redd V. S., 68 Ala. 492; Ford v. S., 21 La. 473; Coker v. S., 20 Ark. 53; 112 Ind. 373, 14 N. E. 241; Griffin v. S. v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438; Under- S., 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Brooks hill Cr. Ev., § 326. V. Com., 98 Ky. 143, 17 Ky. L. 698, ■"> Perteet v. P., 70 111. 176. 32 S. W. 403; Brooks v. Com., 100 "Nowacryk v. P., 139 111. 336, 28 Ky. 194, 18 Ky. L. 702, 37 S. W. 1043; N. E. 961; 1 McClain Cr. L., § 412. Linehan v. S., 113 Ala. 70, 21 So. 836 hughes' criminal law. § 3172 others, should be admitted as to them against whom it is competent, and the jury directed not to apply it to the others; and it should be limited and restricted by instructions from the court.°^ Article XXV. Accomplices Uncorroborated. § 3172. Testimony of uncorroborated accomplice. — Convictions may be sustained on testimony of accomplices alone, although the court may in its discretion advise the jury not to convict on such un- corroborated testimony. ^^ "The authorities agree and common sense teaches that the testimony of accomplices is liable to grave suspicion, and should be acted upon with the utmost caution."^* § 3173. Accomplice — Corroboration required. — Where by statute a conviction can not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated, the corroborating circumstances must be such as con- nect the prisoners in some way with the crime — to some material matter in issue."" Article XXVI. Detective Evidence. § 3174. Evidence of detectives — ^Received with caution. — The tes- "1 Bish. Cr. Proc, §§ 1034-1053; 1, 201; Love v. P., 160 111. 502, 43 Crosby v. P., 137 111. 334, 27 N. B. N. E. 710; Rider v. P., 110 111. 15; 49; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 Campbell v. P., 159 111. 26, 42 N. E. S. Ct. 273, 10 Am. C. R. 174; 2 123; S. v. Chyo CMagk, 92 Mo. 395, Thomp. Trials, §§ 2354, 2415; Wil- 4 S. W. 704, 7 Am. C. R. 418, 8 Cr. L. Hams V. S., 81 Ala. 1, 1 So. 179, 7 Mag. 6. Am. C. R. 451; Bennett v. P., 96 111. ""Hoyt v. P., 140 111. 595, 30 N. 606. See S. v. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, E. 315; Frledberg v. P., 102 111. 164; 9 Am. C. R. 366, 38 Pac. 124; P. v. White v. S., 52 Miss. 216; S. v. Jones, Maunausau, 60 Mich. 15, 26 N. W. 64 Mo. 391; Lindsay v. P., 63 N. 797. Y. 143; Conley v. P., 170 111. 592, 48 "Hoyt V. P., 140' 111. 595, 30 N. N. E. 911; Waters v. P., 172 111. 371, E. 315; Friedberg v. P., 102 111. 164; 50 N. E. 148; Carroll v. S., 5 Neb. Collins V. P., 98 111. 587; Cross v. 31; Keech v. S., 15 Pla. 591. See P., 47 111. 159; Gray v. P., 26 111. 347; "Witnesses." S. V. Watson, 31 Mo. 361; Parsons "Middleton v. S., 52 Ga. 527, 1 v. S., 43 Ga. 197; Honselman v. P., Am. C. R. 196; S. v. Scott, 2P, Or. 168 111. 176, 48 N. E. 304; Conley 331, 42 Pac. 1, 10 Am. C. R. 16; S. V. P., 170 111. 592, 48 N. E. 911. See v. Callahan, 47 La. 444, 17 So. 50, "Witnesses." S. v. Jarvis, 18 Or. 10 Am. C. R. 112. The evidence of 360, 8 Am. C. R. 367, 23 Pac. 251; an accomplice in the following cases Lee v. S., 21 Ohio St. 151; Lopez was reviewed and held not sufficient V. S., 34 Tex. 133; Sumpter v. S., 11 to sustain convictions: Campbell v. Fla. 247; Foster v. P., 18 Mich. 266; P., 159 111. 26. 42 N. E. 123; Conley S. V. Stebbins, 29 Conn. 463; S. v. v. P., 170 111. 588, 48 N. E. 911; Potter, 42 Vt. 495; Best on Bv., § 170, Waters v. P., 172 111. 370, 50 N. B. p. 266; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 379; 1 Hale 148. See also S. v. Maney, 54 Conn. P. C. 304; 1 Roscoe Cr. Bv. 198, note 178, 6 Atl. 401, 7 Am. C. R. 26, 8 Cr. L. Mag. 1, 8. § 3175 EVIDENCE. 837 timony of detectives should be received with great caution and dis- trust.«» Article XXVII. Opinion Evidence. § 3175. Opinions of common witnesses. — Opinions of ordinary witnesses are, under certain circumstances, necessary and competent, , — as, where facts which are made up of a great variety of circum- stances and a combination of appearances which can not be properly described may be shown by witnesses who observed them; and where their observation is such as to justify it, they may state the conclu- sions of their own minds. In this category may be placed matters involving magnitude or quantities, portions of time, space, motion, gravitation, value; appearances of persons or things such as hope, fear, grief, joy,, anger, excitement, etc.** An opinion must be based upon facts, knowledge or experience, examination or observation of a witness, before he or she is warranted in giving such testimony."* § 3176. Opinion on intoxication.—^A witness may not only state how the supposed intoxicated person acted, but he may also state whether he appeared to be intoxicated or not; he may give his opin- ..ion as to whether the person was intoxicated or not."" Article XXVIII. Expert Evidence. § 3177. Expert testimony, when incompetent. — ^Whether or not wounds found upon the body of a dead person were such as could or could not have been made by a railroad train is not a proper subject permitting expert testimony by physicians who have seen the bodies of persons killed by moving trains."" Whenever the subject-matter of inquiry is of such a character that it may be presumed to lie within the common experience of all men of common education, moving in the ordinary walks of life, the rule is that the opinions of experts are "^S. V. McKean, 36 Iowa 343, 2 Am. C. R. 303; S. v. Mims, 36 Or. Green C. R. 635; Needham v. P., 98 315, 61 Pac. 888. See § 3038. 111. 277; Chapman v. Chapman, 129 °° S. v. Mayberry, 33 Kan. 441, 6 111. 390, 21 N. B. 806; Underhill Cr. Pac. 553, 5 Am. C. R. 372; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 4. See "Witnesses." Ev., § 440a; Lawson Exp. & Opin. " S. V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12, Pac. Ev. 473; Rogers Exp. Test., § 5; P. v. 318> 7 Am. C. R. 383, citing Law- Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 565. eon Exp. & Opin. Ev., rule 64; 2 Best »»Hellyer v. P., 186 111. 550, 58 N. Ev., § 517. E. 245. "P. V. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431, 1 838 hughes' criminal law. § 317j^ inadmissible.'^ The quantity and (juality of the light of the moorf are not the subject of expert testimony.*'" § 3178. Opinion of ihedical eipert — Coatradi&tilig. — ^A medical expert, in support of his opinion, may state all the writers on the sub- jtebt, ^0 far as he knows, to supj)ort hiiii iii his bpiilioii.'* Where aa expert a!ssuines to base his opinion ilpon the work of a pkfticulal' aiithbr, thit irQik mdy be redd in evidence td contr£[dict him.™ Abticlb XXIX. ScrfiNTiFic BodKS. § 3179. Scienti£c books incompetent. — The weight of current au- thority is decidedly against the admission of scientific books in evi- dence before a jury ; and such treaties can not be read from to contra- dict an expert witness, generally; nor read by counsel in his argu- ment to the jury.'* § 3180. Besult of ettimiiiatioii of books. — The witness (an ex- pert) was allowed to give the result of his examination of a mass of boots and papers too volumihous tb be converiiently exaltoiiifed ill bOurt, ind' iii" silch cases it is cb&peteiit for the witness to Speak as to the^ result of the accounts, the books dnd papets being preseirt on the trirf and in evidence.'^ "' Akticle XXX. Witness' Foemee Testimony. § 3181. Witness' former testimony. — What a witness may have testified to oh a former occasi6n about the same transaction (as at the coroner's inquest) is not coinpetent evidence on the trial.'" " Hellyer v. P., 186 111. 550, 58 W. 665, 4 Am. C. R. 363, 42 Am. R. N. E. 245; Rogers Exp. Test, § 8. 477; S. v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12 "a Green v. S., 154 Ind. 655, 57 N. Pac. 318, 7 Am. C. R. 390; S. v. E. 637. See Clay v. S. (Tex. Cr.), Peterson, 110 Iowa 647, 82 N. W. 56 S. W. 629. 329; Epps v. S., 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. "S. v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12 Pac. 491. 5 Am. C. R. 525; 1 Greenl. Ev.. 318, 7 Am. C. R. 391; Carter v. S., § 497, and note; Gillett Indirect & 2 Ind. 617; Collier v. Simpson, 5 C. Col. Ev., § 85; P. v. Wheeler, 60 Call & P. 460. See "Witnesses." 581, 4 Am. C. R. 192; Reg. v. Taylor, " City of Bloomington v. Shrock, 13 Cox C. C. 77; S. v. O'Brien, 7 R. I. 110 111. 222; Conn. Mutual Life Ins. 338. Co. v. Ellis, 89 111. 519; Huffman "1 Greenl. Ev., § 93; Hollings- V. CUck, 77 N. C. 55; Ripen v. Bit- worth v. S., Ill Ind. 289, 12 N. B. tel, 30 Wis. 614; Pinny v. Cahill, 48 490; Whar. Cr. Ev. (9th ed.), § 166; Mich. 584, 12 N. W. 862. S. v. Pindley, 101 Mo. 217, 14 S. W. ™City of Bloomington v. Shrock, 185, 8 Am. C. R. 194; Underhill Cr. 110 111. 221; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), Ev., §§ 45, 291. § 538; Rogers Exp. Test., §§ 168, "Purdy v. P., 140 111. 52, 29 N B 169: P. V. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N. 700; Ritter v. P., 130 111. 255 22 N §' S"" 82 EVIDENCE. 839" ASTIOLE XXXI. iMFEACaiiTG EvfDENCE. § 3182. Impeaching witness — ^Infamotis crime. — ^I'he preseention, in undertaking to discredit a witness because of his former ■conviotioB of some infamous crime, must make legal proof of that fact. Oral proof, or miUimus by which he is detained in prison, is not compe- tent. The reeofd of coiiviction is BecesBadrji'' Aa*ricLE XXXII. EvfDSNOE OF Absent Witness. ^3i83. IteStimony of absent or dead witness. — ^ihe testimony giveii by an absent witness on a former trial can not be proved in a criihinal trial. The courts allow such testimony when the witness is dead, but not upon the sole ground that he is absent from the state, and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.'* Article XXXIII. Handwriting, Evibence of. § 3184. Handwriting by comparison — ^Expert. — The genuineness of hiaiidwritifig c&ii not be proved or dispfoved by allowing thfe'Jttry to B6ifipa:fe it with the handwriting of the party provefd ot admitted tb he gehiline.'"' But a comparison of handwritingg may be made'by fhfe jtiry of different papers which are pertinent and introduced aS evi- dence in the case.'" And expert testimony may be introduced to sho^ •that two different names on two different documents in evidence were ■written- by the same person.'' Article XXXIV. Estoppel not Applicable. § 3185. Estoppel not applicable. — The doctrine of estoppel has no application to criminal causes. The accused may show the actual E. 605: S. V. Row, 81 Iowa 138, 46 Cr. 545. Contra, S. v. Thompson, 80 N. W. 872. Me. 194, 7 Am. C. R. 169, 13 , Atl. "Bartholomew v. P., 104 111. 608; 892; Costelo v. Crowell, 139 Mass. Kirby v P 123 111. 438, 15 N. E. 590, 2 N. B. 698; S. v. Hastings, 53 33; 1 Greeni. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 375. N. H. 452, 2 Green C. R. 341. See "Witnesses." "Brohston v. Cahill, 64 111. 358; - "Collins V. Com., 12 Bush (Ky.) Thomas v. S., 103 Ind. 419, 2 N. B. 271 2 Am. C. R. 283; Thompson v. 808; S. v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 3 S., 106 Ala. 67, 17 So. 512; P. v. Am. C. R. 135; 3 Greeni. Bv. (Redf. Newman, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 296; Bass ed.), § 106; Underbill Cr. Ev., | 429. V. S., 136 Ind. 165, 36 N. E. 124; S. "Cross v. P., 47 111. 163; S. v. V. Johnson, 12 Nev. 121; S. v. Mc- Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 3 Am. C. R. 135: Neil, 33 La. 1332. See "Witnesses." P. v. Schooley, 149 N. Y. 99, 43 N. "> Juinpertz v. P., 21 111. 408; Ker- E. 536; P. v. Parker, 67 Mich. 222. nin V. Hill, 37 111. 209. See P. v. 34 N. W. 720. Dorthy, 63 N. Y. Supp. 592, 14 N. Y. -840 HUGHES' CRIMINAL LAW. § 3186 state of facts, notwithstanding what he may have said or done.'® A written warranty on the sale of property will not preclude the prose- cution from showing the true state of facts, in proving fraudulent, criminal conduct.''* Abtiole XXXV. Photographic Pictures. § 3186. Evidence by photographic pictures. — ^A photographic copy of a writing, having been taken because it was fading, may be used as parol evidence after the original has so faded as to become illegible, for the purpose of proving the original to be the same.'" And a pho- tograph taken from life of a person, and proved to resemble him, may be used to identify him in the absence of such person.*^ Article XXXVI. "Checks/' "Slips." § 3187. "Check slips" for shipping. — For the purpose of showing that the goods were placed on the cars and regularly trans-shipped from one car to another, until placed on the car from which it was claimed to have been stolen, "check slips" containing the number of the car to which the goods were transferred, and the descriptive marks on the goods, were offered in evidence, on the part of the state, together with the testimony of a witness at each trans-shipment that, in the regular course of business, it was the duty of the one placing goods in the cars to call the description of the goods; that it was the duty of the witness to check all freight so called to him; that he had no recollection of the goods in question, or the "check slips," but they were made in the regular course of business, in his own handwriting, at the time the goods must have passed into the cars. Held compe- tent.'^ "S. V. Hutchinson, 60 Iowa 478, P. v. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73, 34 N. 4 Am. C. R. 163, 164, 15 N. W. 298; E. 730; P. v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, Jackson v. P., 126 111. 144, 18 N. E. 48 Pac. 75, 10 Am. C. R. 525; Wit- 286; Gillett Indirect & Col. Bv., son v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613, 16 S. Ct. § 119. 895; S. v. O'Reilly, 126 Mo. 597, 29 " Jackson v. P., 126 111. 144, 18 S. W. 577; UnderMU Cr. Ev., § 50; N. E. 286. Gillett Indirect & Col. Bv., § 82. » Duffin V. P., 107 111. 120. ^ Schriedley v. S., 23 Ohio St. 130, "Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa. St. 2 Green C. R. 531; Moots v. S., 21 340, 1 Am. C. R. 313. See also P. v. Ohio St. 653. Jackson, 111 N. Y. 362, 19 N. B. 54; § 3188 EVIDENCE. 841 Article XXXVII. Fictitious Person— Evidence op. § 3188. Fictitious person— Evidence.— Where inquiries are to be made in regard to the residence or existence of any supposed party to a forged instrument, it is proper and usual to call the police officers, penny-postman or other persons well acquainted with the place and its inhabitants, but the results of inquiries made by strangers in the place are also competent.** Article XXXVIII. Proving Corporation. §3189. Proof of corporation.— A statute providing "that in all criminal prosecutions involving proof of the legal existence of a cor- poration, user shall be prima facie evidence of such existence," is com- prehensive enough to include all corporations organized under the laws of the state or the laws of other states and doing business in the state in which such statute exists.®* §3190. Proving acts of corporation. — The defendant offered to prove that a majority of the board of trustees of a corporation of which he was a member assented -to the removal of some trees, which he was indicted for willfully cutting and removing from prem- ises which it controlled, which was excluded by the court. Held er- ror, the general rule of proving the acts of corporations not apply- mg.®" Article XXXIX. Eebuttal Evidence. § 3191. Evidence in rebuttal. — The court may in its discretion al- low evidence in rebuttal which strictly should have been offered in chief.** § 3192. Evidence rebutting suicide theory. — ^A letter by the de- ceased, written to her mother just before her death and postmarked afterwards, clearly showed by its contents that she was in a healthful "S Greenl. Bv., § 109; Com. v. generally S. v. Mlssio, 105 Tenn. 218, Meserve, 154 Mass. 66, 27 N. E. 997; 58 S. W. 216. P. V. Sharp, 53 Mich. 523, 19 N. W. '"Mettler v. P., 135 111. 415, 25 N. 168; P. V. Jones, 106 N. Y. 523, 13 E. 748. N. E. 93. "Simons v. P., IBO 111. 76, 36 N. " Kincaid v. P., 139 111. 216, 28 N. E. 1019. But see 1 Thomp. Trials, E. 1060. See Waller v. P., 175 111. § 344. See P. v. Mayes, 113 Cal. 618, 222, 51 N. E. 900; S. v. Thompson, 45 Pac. 860; S. v. Jaggers, 58 S. C. 23 Kan. 33S 03 Am. R. 165. See 41, 36 S. E. 434 (threats). 842 hughes' criminal law. § 319§ condition of body and miiid; she spoke of home affairs, noted the oc- currences of the town; spoke hopefully of the future. The letter in- dicated cheerfuliiess and contentment, and its' contents were wholly inconsistent with the theory of suicide, and for that reason and purr pose it was admissible to disprove the theory of the defense.*^ Aeticlb XL. Proof op Venue. § 3193. Evidence proviftg Venue. — Where the evideiice showed that the offense was committed on Washington street, in Peoriay Illi- nois, it was held sufficient proof of the commission of the offense in Pedria cotiiity.^^ Proof that a crime was committed in Chicago ie sufficient proof that it was committed in "Cook county."*' Prool that a crime was committed within fifty yards of a residence, and that the residence was within the county mentioned, is sufficient.®' • § 31&4. Venue by circumstantial evidence.-^The venue must al- ways be proved by the prosecutioBj but it may be shown by circum- stantial evidence, and the doctrine of reasonable doubt does not ap- ply." §3195. Venufri^Railroad offense.^^The statute of Illinois pro- vides that where any offense is committed upon any railroad car pass- ing over any railroad, and it can not b6 determined in what county the offense was committed, the accused may be indicted and tried in any ctiiinty through or into t^hich the car Hiay pass or come. Held to b6 a trahsitofy offense.*^ " S. V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1, 12 Pac. " Cox v. S., 28 Tex. App. 92. 12 318, 7 Am. C. R. 387; 3 Greenl. Ev., S. W. 493; Clark v. S., 110 Ga. 911, § 135. 36 S. E. 297; Boggs v. S. (Tex. Cr.). »» Sullivan V. P., 114 111. 26, 28 N. 25 S. W. 770; Wilson v. S., 62 Art; E. 381; Moore v. P., 150 111. 407, 37 497, 36 S. W. 842; Robson v. S., 83 N. E. 909; S. v. Cantieny, 34 Minn. Ga. 166, 9 S. B. 610; S. v. Hawkins 1, 24 N. W. 458, 6 Am. C. R. 420; (Neb.), 83 N. W. 198; Tinney v. S., Cluck v. S., 40 Ind. 263, 1 Green C. Ill Ala. 74, 20 So. 597; Brooke v. H. 736. P., 23 Colo. 375, 48 Pac. 502; S. v. »' Sullivan v. P., 122 111. 387, 13 Cantieny, 34 Minn. 1, 24 N. W. 458, N. E. 248. See S. v. Dent, 6 Rich. 6 Am. C. R. 420; Underhlll Cr. Ev., (S. C.) 383, 3 Am. C. R. 421; P. v. §§ 35, 36; Bloom v. S., 68 Ark. 336. Van Maren (Mich.), 85 N. W. 240. 58 S. W. 41. Contra, Rooks v. S., 65 " Gosha V. S., 56 Ga. 36, 2 Am. C. Ga. 330, 4 Am. C. R. 484. R. 590; Franklin v. S., 5 Baxt. "^Watt v. P., 126 111. 9, 18 N. B. (Tenn.) 613; 1 McClaIn Cr. L., § 395. 340. S "196 EVIDENCE. S^S § 3196. Venue^Proof not sufficifent.— The evidence must affirma- tively show that the offense was committed in the county alleged in the indictmenlt ; the proof showing the crimfe was committed in Uppe't Alton is not sufficient to prove that the offense was committed "la Madison county." Names of streets are not sufficient.** § 3197. Date alleged iinmaterial.-^The prosecution #ill not be re- stricted to the day alleged in the indictment on which the crime is cKirged to have been committed.** Article XM. YrniAScn, WheSt. §3198. When no variance — ^When variance. — ^"An indictment describing a thing by its 'generic term is supported by proof of a spe- cies which is clearly comprehended within SUch description." Thus, if the charge be of poisoning by a certain kind of drugj and the pro there is no vferiance.*' An indictinent alleging that the de- fendant strrtck the deceased with a piece of brick,- giving him a mortal wound, and the proof that the blow was given with the fist by the de- fendant, and from such blow the deceased fell upon a piece of brick, ^as held a fatal variance.** § 3199. Variance — Grand jury knew. — The burden is on the de- - fendant to show that the grand jury, at the particular time of findirfg the indictment, knew the names of the parties described in the indict- ment as unknown, if he would take advantage of that point.*^ § 3200. Variance — Different assault. — Under an indictment charg- ing but a single assault and battery, the prosecution, having intrb- " Moore v. P., 150 111. 406, 407, 37 " S. v. Dawkins, 32 S. C. 17, 10 N. E. 909; Rice v. P., 38 111. 435-6; S. E. 772. Jackson v. P., 40 111. 405; Sattler ==1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 65; V. P., 59 111. 68; Dougherty v. P., 3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 140. 118 111. 163, 8 N. E. 673; Rooks v. ^Guedel v. P., 43 111. 228; Un- S., 65 Ga. 330, 4 Am. 0. R. 484; S. derhill Cr. Ev., § 32. See "Vari- V. Hartnett, 75 Mo. 251, 4 Am. C. R. ance." 573; P. V. Parks, 44 Cal. 105, 2 Green "Guthrie v. S., 16 Neb. 667, 21 C. R. 398; Jones v. S., 58 Ark. 390, N. W. 455, 4 Am. C. R. 80; Com. v. 24 S. W. 1073. Hill, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 137; Com. v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54. 844 hughes' criminal law. § 3201 duced evidence of an assault and battery upon the prosecuting witness, committed on a certain occasion, can not afterwards introduce evi- dence of any subsequent distinct or separate assault and battery com- mitted by the defendant on the same person. The prosecution is bound by the evidence of the first assault and battery.'* § 3201. Variance — Gaming case. — The indictment alleges that the defendant, "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, etc., and on divers other days and times before and since that day, at the county aforesaid, unlawfully did keep and deal and permit to be kept and dealt in a building under his control, a certain game of chance, played with cards, for money and other representatives of value, commonly called and known as poker, contrary," etc. Held but a single offense was charged and evidence of only one act competent, and when such single offense has been fixed (by the evidence) as to time and place, the proof should be confined to it alone.** Ahticlb XLII. Jury to Weigh Evideitce. § 3202. Jury must weigh evidence. — Where there is any testimony which has any legal effect it would be error in the court to determine the weight of it, or the fact which it did or did not ascertain. But whether the evidence tends to prove anything pertinent to the issue is a question for the court.^°* At common law the judge of the court sums up and comments upon the evidence, and may express his own opinion as to its weight, but by statutory provisions, in perhaps all of the states, this rule or practice has been changed.^ § 3203. Jury viewing premises. — The court may in its discretion permit the jury to visit and view the premises where it is alleged a crime was committed, not for the purpose of furnishing evidence upon which a verdict is to be found, but for the purpose of enabling the jury better to understand and apply the evidence which is given in court.'' "•Richardson v. S., 63 Ind. 192, 3 N. W. 302, 6 Am. C. R. 541; 1 Greenl. Am. C. R. 303; Fields v. Ter., 1 Ev. (14th ed.), § 49. Wyo. 78, 3 Am. C. R. 320; S. v. Bates, ^ Chambers v. P., 105 111.. 417; Com. 10 Conn. 372; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 624. v. Child, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 252. "" Fields V. Ter., 1 Wyo. 78, 3 Am. ' Chute v. S., 19 Minn. 271, 1 Green C. R. 320. C. R. 575; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. ^"S. V. Rheams, 34 Minn. 18, 24 (Mass.) 515; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., § 86. § 3204 evidence. 845 Article XLIII. Circumstantial Evidence, §3204. Two kinds— Certain, and uncertain— Sufficiency.— Cir- cumstantial evidence is of two kinds : 1. Certain, where a conclusion necessarily follows. 2. Uncertain, where the conclusion is probable and is reached by a process of reasoning.' Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction of any criminal offense, however heinous, provided the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.* "What circumstances amount to proof of an offense can never be a matter of general defini- tion. The test is the sufficiency of evidence to satisfy the under- standing and conscience of the ]ury."° § 3205. To be acted upon cautiously. — "All presumptive evidence should be acted upon cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."" Article XLIV. Kdles as to Circumstantial Evidence. § 3206. Weight of "each link." — Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction, each necessary link and each and every material fact upon which a conviction depends must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' § 3207. Facts must be consistent. — It has always been held, in eases of purely circumstantial evidence, that if any of the essential facts or circumstances be absolutely inconsistent with the hypothesis 'Gannon v. P., 127 111. 520, 21 N. W. 821, 7 Am. C. R. 363; S. v. E. 525; 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.), Kruger (Idaho), 61 Pac. 36; Bress- § 13a. ler v. P., 117 lU. 438, 8 N. E. 62; P. "Carlton v. P., 150 111. 187, 37 N. v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 37, 11 N. B. E. 244; P. V. Daniels (Cal.), 34 Pac. 773; Burrill Cir. Ev. 773, 736; 2 233; S. V. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 Thomp. Trials, § 2511; 1 Roscoe Cr. S. W. 193; S. V. Slingerland, 19 Nev. Ev. 27; Graves v. P., 18 Colo. 170, 135, 141, 7 Pac. 280; S. v. Hunter, 50 32 Pac. 63; Marion v. S., 16 Neb. Kan. 302, 32 Pac. 37; S. v. Elsham, 349, 20 N. W. 289; Com. v. Webster, 70 Iowa 531, 31 N. W. 66. 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295; P. v. Phipps, 'Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 417, 55 N. 39 Cal. 333; P. v. Anthony, 56 Cal. E. 519, citing Raggio v. P., 135 111. 397; S. v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 10 Am. 533, 26 N. E. 377; Carlton v. P., 150 C. R. 52, 41 Pac. 998; S. v. Purney, 111. 181, 37 N. E. 244. 41 Kan. 115, 8 Am. C. R. 137, 21 Pac. '4 Bl. Com. 359; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 213; Kollock v. S., 88 Wis. 663, 60 24. N. W. 817. 'P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 33 N. 846 hughes' criminal law. § 3208 of guilt, that hypothesis can not be true. The hypothesis of guilt is to be compared with the facts proved, and with all of them.* § 3208. Facts consistent with guilt. — In all cases of circumstan- tial evidence the rule is now established by a great preponderance of authorities that it is necessary not only that the circumstances shall all concur to show that the prisoner committed the crime, but that they are all inconsistent with any other rational conclusion." Where a criminal charge is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, the proof ought to be not only consistent with the prisoner's guilt, but incon- sistent with every other rational conclusion.^" § 3209. Facts must exclude other theory. — "Where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, then the rule is that before a conviction can be properly had the guilt of the accused must be so thoroughly estab- lished as to ezelude every other reasonable theory."^^ § 3210. Facts shall lead to certainty. — In order to warrant a con- viction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature ^jid tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the of- fense charged.^^ § 3211. Facts leading to inference.— All facts and circumstances upon which any reasonable inference or presumption can be founded, •P. V. Aiken, 66 Mich. 460, 7 Am. 148, 31 N. W. 94; Howard v. S., 108 C. R. 363, 33 N. W. 821; Wills Cir. Ala. 571, 18 So. 813; Underbill Cr. Ev. (3d ed.), 17; Whar. Cr. Bv. Oth Ev., § 6. ed.), § 18; Burrill Cir. Ev. 736. "Purdy v. P., 140 111. 48, 29 N. "3 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 137; E. 700; Marzen v. P., 173 111. 62, 50 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), 25; P. N. B. 249; P. v. Kennedy, 32 N. Y. V. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 139; 1 McClain 141; P. v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; Cole- Cr. L., p 409; Schusler v. S., 29 Ind. man v. S., 26 Fla. 61, 7 So. 367; 394; Gillett Indirect & Col. Ev., Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) § 53. 313; Crow v. S., 33 Tex. App. 264, "1 Greenl. Ev. (Redf. ed.), § 34; 26 S. W. 209; Thomp. Trials, § 2505; P. V. Davis, 64 Cal. 440, 1 Pac. 889, Dreessen v. S., 38 Neb. 375, 56 N. 4 Am. C. R. 515; Smith v. S., 35 W. 1024; 1 Starkie Ev. 577; Burrill Tex. Cr. 618, 34 S. W. 960; Carlton Cir. Ev. 728-738; P. v. Cunningham V. P., 150 111. 181, 37 N. B. 244; S. 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 608. V. David, 131 Mo. 380, 33 S. W. 28; "Dunn v. P., 158 111. 593, 42 N. Lancaster v. S., 91 Tenn. 267, 18 E. 47; Carlton v. P., 150 111. 187 37 S. W. 777; S. v. Asbell, 57 Kan. 398, N. E. 244. 46 Pac. 770; P. v. Foley. 64 Mich. §^3212 EVIDENCE. 847 as to the truth or falsity of the issue or of a. disputed fact, are admis- sible in evidenee.^^ A fact may be inferred from the proof of other facts ; but a presumption of fact is not warranted unless it rests upon a fact proven.^* Motives to commit crime, declarations or acts in- dicative of guilty consciousness or intention, or preparation for the commission of crime, are circumstances which may be judicially con- sidered as leading to important and well-grounded presumption.^" § 3212. Facts tending to prove issue. — Evidence of tracks in the lane leading from the road to the house, corresponding to the track of the defendant, coupled with previous threats of the defendant and his declarations in the nature of threats, are competent evidence and properly admissible with the other circumstances, though not of them- selves convincing of guilt.^' § 3213. Degree of certainty. — ^Absolute, metaphysical and demon- strative certainty is not essential to proof of circumstances.^'' In no case ought the force of circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction be inferior to the evidence of a single eye-witness." "Tenney v. Smith, 63 Vt. 520, 22 "1 Starkle Ev., § 79; Otmer v. P., Atl. 659; S. v. Burpee, 65 Vt. 1, 25 76 111. 149; Com. v. Goodwin, 14 4.tl. 964, 9 A51. C. R.537. C^^ay (Mass.) 55; 1 Greenl. Ev. "Robblns V. P., 95 111.-178; Graves (Redf. ed.), § 13a; Costley v. Com., V. Golwell, 90 111. 612; Hamilton v. 11^ IVIass. 1; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8tli P., 29 Mich. 195. See Carlton v. P., ,ed.), § 21; Carlton v. P., 1,50 111. 181, 150 111. 181, 37 N. E. 244. 191, 37 N. B. 244. "Carlton v. P., 150 111. 187, 37 N. "2 Thomp. Trials, § 2501. The E. 244; Wills Cir. Ev. 39;' Stitz v. evidence in the following cases was S., 104 Ind. 359, 4 N. E. 145, 5 Am. entirely circumstantial, and was c'r 50 lield sufficient to sustain convic- "« Carlton v. P., 150 111. 187, 37 N. tions: Carroll v. P., 136' lU. .457, 27 E. 244; S. V. Melick, 65 Iowa 614, N. E. 18 (larceny); Gannon v. P., 22 N. W. 895, 5 Am. ,0. R. 52; Shan- 127 111. 510, 21 N. E. 525. non V. S., 57 Ga. 482, 2 Am. CI. R. 57; Whar. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.), § 756. CHAPTBE LXXXV. VAKIANCE. Aet. I. Persons Unknown, §§ 3314-3215 II. Person Injured: Name, § 3216 III. Description of Property, .... § 3217 IV. Name of Corporation, § 3218 V. Husband or Wife Owner, .... § 3219 VI. Name of Deceased and of Defendant, § 3220 VII. Same Name, When Not, .... § 3221 VIII. Owner of Property, § 3222 IX. Name by Initials, § 3223 X. Selling or Giving, § 3224 XI. Principal and Agent, § 3225 XII. Descriptive Averments, §§ 3226-3227 XIII. Description of Money, §§ 3228-3229 XIV. Striking or Other Means, .... § 3230 XV. Different Intent, § 3231 XVI. Poisoning; Shooting, § 3232 XVII. Sex of Animals, § 3233 XVIII. Series of Numbers, § 3234 XIX. Committing and Attempting to Commit, § 3235 XX. Variance, When Available, .... § 3236 Article I. Persons TJnknowit. § 3214. Principal "unknown" — Principal and accessory. — Where there are two counts, one charging the principal to be known, and the other charging him to be unknown, it is sufficient if either is proven.^ 1 Spies V. P., 122 111. 1, 12 N. E. 112 Pa. St. 220. 5 Atl. 309; S. v. 865, 17 N. E. 898, 6 Am. C. R. 692; Green, 26 S. C. 105, 128; Reg. v. Ritzman v. P., 110 111. 362; Brennan Tyler, 8 C. & P. 616; 1 Bish. Cr. L., v. P., 15 111. 516; Pilger v. Com., §§ 651, 677. (848) § 3215 VARIANCE. 849 If, on an indictment of a principal and an accessory, it be alJeged in the indictment that the principal is unknown, and the proof «hi the trial shows that he was known, there is a fatal variance.^ § 3215. Injured person unknown. — Where a grand jury finds an~ indictment against a defendant and alleges the offense with reference to some person unknown to the grand jury, the defendant can be con- victed only of an offense concerning some person who was in fact un- known to the grand jury, and whose name had not been disclosed to them.* Article II. Person Injured: Name. § 3216. Name of person injured. — The indictment alleging the murder of "Patrick Fitz Patrick" will not be supported by proof of the murder of "Patrick Pitzpatrick."* An allegation of the killing of "Eobert Kain" is not supported by evidence of the killing of "Kain." There is a fatal variance. ° Charging the defendant livith adultery with "Mary Hite" is not supported by evidence of that of- fense with "May Hyde."° Article III. Description of Property. § 3217. Description of property — Name. — An indictment alleged the larceny of a "Smith & Weston" revolver, and the revolver intro- duced in evidence was a "Smith & Wesson." Held a variance.'' Article IV. Name op Corporation. § 3218. Name of corporation. — The indictment alleged that *he defendant defrauded the "Merchants' Loan and Trust Company," or- ' Presley v. S., 24 Tex. App. 494, §§ 546, 553; Rex v. Blick, 4 * Haynes v. U. S., 101 Fed. 817; V. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 81; Campbell v. Jackson v. U. S., 102 Fed. 473. S., 16 Ala. 144; P. v. Bauer, 37 Hun "Herron v. Com., 79 Ky. 38, 4 Am. (N. Y.) 407; Wattingham v. S., 5 C. R. 238. Sneed (Tenn.) 64; Hoskins v. S., 27 "George v. P., 167 111. 447, 457; 47 Ind. 470; P. v. Burridge, 99 Mich. N. E. 741; 4 Bl. Com. 361. 343, 58 N. W. 319, 9 Am. C. R. 71. ''Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 653, 13 Contra, Rice v. Com., 12 Mete. N. B. 213; Morpan v. S., 47 Ala. 34; (Mass.) 246; Taff v. S., 39 Conn. 82; Caldwell v. S., 55 Ala. 133; Ex parte Brown v. S., 47 Ala. 47, 1 Green C. Howard, 26 Vt. 205; United States R. 532; Whitehead v. Reg., 7 Q. B. v. Walsh, 1 Abb. (C. C.) 66; 1 Bish. 582; Jones v. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) Cr. Proc. (3d ed.), § 1321. 848. "Moody v. P., 20 111. 319. Costs § 3298 PENALTY. 877 §3298. Fine is not debt.— A fine imposed as the penalty for a criminal offense is not a debt within the meaning of the law forbid- ding imprisonment for debt.^" Article IX. Infamous, Cruel Punishment. § 3299. Indictment for infamous punishment. — When the accused is in danger of being subjected to an infamous punishment, if con- yicted, he has the right to insist that he shall not be put upon his trial, except on the accusation of a grand jury. For more than a century imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison or peniten- tiary, or other similar institution, has been considered an infamous punishment in England and America.^^ §3300. Cruel punishment. — "Excessive bail should not be re- quired nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punish- ments inflicted."^^ The "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the United States constitution (article 8, Amendments) has no application to crimes against the laws of a state.^* . Article X. Imprisonment in Mitigation. § 3301. Imprisonment — In mitigation. — Where a person has al- ready suilered some punishment on account of an alleged ofEense he ought to be entitled to prove such punishment in mitigation of any other punishment which might be inflicted on a subsequent trial for the same offense. So, where a defendant has been imprisoned in the county jail, on a criminal charge, previous to his trial, he is entitled to prove that imprisonment on the trial in mitigation.^^ Article XI. Ex Post Facto Penalty. § 3302. Statute not ex post facto. — Statutes increasing the pun- ishment of habitual criminals for a second or subsequent offense can were unknown at common law In 5 S. Ct. 935, 4 Am. C. R. 288; 4 BI. criminal cases: 1 Bish. New Cr. Com. 377. Proc, § 1313. ^"Kistler v. S., 54 Ind. 400, 2 Am. " Lee v. S." 75 Ala. 29; S. v. Leach, C. R. 21. 75 Ala 36; Ex parte Robertson, 27 '''See S. v. Driver, 78 N. C. 423, Tex. App. 628, 11 S. W. 669. See P. 2 Am. C. R. 487. V Foster 104 111 156. " Com. v. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66, "='Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 42 N. E. 504, 10 Am. C. R. 68; Com. v. Hitchings, 5 Gray (Mass.) 482. 878 hughes' criminal law. § 3303 not be regarded as retrospective in their action, nor are they ex post facto laws.'"' If the law by which punishment is to be inflicted is changed to the prejudice of the defendant after the commission of the crime, it is ex post facto, and invalid as to such offense.'" Where the punishment for manslaughter, under the statute of Illinois, at the time of the commission of the crime, was imprisonment in the peni- tentiary for life or for a number of years, and under the new law, called the indeterminate sentence act of 1895, the punishment could not be less than the minimum, and might extend to the maximum, — it was held that the law of 1895 was ex post facto, and that the ac- cused should have been punished under the law as it stood at the time of the commission of the crime.^' Article XII. Death Penalty; Execution. § 3303. Place of execution — Death penalty. — ^Where the punish- ment is fixed at death, the defendant shall be executed in the county where he was convicted.''* § 3304. "Quick with child" — ^Execation stayed. — ^By the common law, if a woman in a capital case is "quick with child," the court will order a stay of execution "till a reasonable time after her delivery or until the ensuing session.""* Article XIII. Punishment, Commences When. § 3305. When punishment commences. — The sherifE shall take a prisoner to the penitentiary withia a reasonable time after the ad- journment of court.^" Article XIV. Securing Fine, When Unlawful. § 3306. Securing fine by order of commitment. — To secure the collection of a fine, the sentence, by the common law and by statutes "P. V. Raymond, 96 N. Y. 38; "Johnson v. P., 173 111. 133, 50 Sturtevant v. Com., 158 Mass. 598, N. E. 321. 33 N. E. 648; Ex parte Gutierrez, 45 "'Jackson v. P., 18 111. 273. Cal. 429. ^1 Hale P. C. 368; 2 Hawk. P. C. ^ Johnson v. P., 173 111. 133, 50 -ch. 51. See 4 Bl. Com. 395. A plea N. E. 321; Kring v. Missouri, 107 of pregnancy for delay of sentence U. S. 221, 2 S. Ct. 443; Shepherd v. Is to be submitted to a jury of ma- P., 25 N. Y. 406; Garvey v. P., 6 trons: 2 Hale P. C. 413. See Hole- Colo. 559. man v. S., 13 Ark. 105. « Morton v. P., 47 111. 476. § 3307 PENALTY. 879 in many of the states, should contain the order that the defendant stand committed till it is paid.'^ Giving an officer security for a fine, such as a note and mortgage, is not good in payment or discharge of a fine, and such note is not collectible, because not authorized by statute.^^ Article XV. English Common Law. § 3307. English criminal law. — The English criminal laws may be truly characterized as written in blood. When Blackstone wrote . his commentaries there were one hundred and sixty kinds of felonies, for the commission of which the offenders expiated their crimes on the gallows. Stealing the value of one shilling was a capital offense 33 » 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, § 1301, S. v. Boynton, 75 Iowa 753, 38 N. W. citing Rex v. Hord, Say. 176; Reg. 505. v. Layton, 1 Salk. 353; Ex parte "" Schlief v. S., 38 Ark. 522; Clark Tuichner, 69 Iowa 393, 28 N. W. 655; v. S., 3 Tex. App. 338. Kennedy v. P., 122 111. 649, 13 N. E. ==McKinney v. P., 2 Gilm. (111.) 213; Ex parte Maule, 19 Neb. 273, 27 549. N. W. 119; S. V. Myers, 44 Iowa 580; CHAPTER LXXXVIII. NEW TRIAIi. Aet. I. Origin and Effect of Motion, • . • §§ 3308-3309 II. Motion — General, § 3310 III. Object of Motion, § 3311 IV. When to Be Made, § 3313 V. Verification of Motion; Counter Affidavits, § 3313 VI. Motion, When Unnecessary, ....§§ 3314-3315 VII. New Trial Discretionary, § 3316 VIII. Impeaching Verdict, § 3317 IX. Influencing Jury; Disqualification, . §§ 3318-3320 X. Hearing of Motion by Judge, ... § 3321 XI. New Evidence, Cumulative, .... § 3322 XII. Nature of New Evidence, ....§§ 3323-3324 XIII. New Evidence Only Impeaching, . . § 3325 XIV. Negligence of Party, § 3326 XV. Reversal, When, § 3327 XVI. Examining Other Witnesses, ... § 3338 Article I. Origin and Effect of Motion. § 3308. Origin of motion for new trial — Rules. — The origin of the motion for a new trial is of extremely ancient date, "concealed in the night of time," and consequently involved in some obscurity.^ The same rules relating to a new trial govern in both civil and crim- inal cases.^ § 3309. Effect of motion — Arrest of judgment. — At common law the motion for a new trial suspends the judgment and all its effects until it is disposed of. This rule has been adopted in Kentucky and ^ 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2709, citing ' 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2709. 3 Bl. Com. 387, 388. (880) § 3310 NEW TRIAL. 881 Illinois.' The office of the motion in arrest of judgment is to direct the attention of the trial court to substantial defects in the indict- ment, or to errors appearing on the face of the record proper ; it can- not take the place of a motion for a new trial.* Article II. Motion — General. § 3310. Motion without stating reasons. — Where a motion for a new trial is submitted without any statement in writing of the grounds therefor, without objection, such statement will be treated as waived, and the want of it can not be urged in the higher court.** Article III. Object oe Motion. § 3311. Object of motion. — ^Applying for and securing a new trial relates to the charge upon which the accused was convicted, and not as to counts or charges upon which he was acquitted.* Article IV. When to Be Made. § 3312. When motion must be entered. — There should be no de- lay in entering the motion for a new trial. It should be made at the first opportunity, and any cause for delay should be explained by- affidavit upon which the application is founded.'' Article V. Verification op Motion; Counter Affidavits. § 3313. Motion must be verified — Counter affidavits, — In some jurisdictions, the motion for a new trial must be supported by aifidavit of the moving party, or some person for him, setting out in detail all the facts and reasons therefor, that the court may be able to ascertain its credibility and relevancy and whether diligence has been shown.* Affidavits of the witnesses who are expected to give the newly discov- »2 Thomp. Trials, § 2730, citing "Brennan v. P., 15 111. 518; Hurt Turner v. Booker, 2 Dana (Ky.) v. S., 25 Miss. 378; Slaughter v. S. 335; Wright v. Haddock, 7 Dana 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 410. (Ky.) 254; P. v. Gary, 105 111. 264; ' Cochlin v. P., 93 111. 410. Hearson v. Grandine, 87 111. 115. « S. v. Nagel, 136 Mo. 45, 37 S. W *S. V. Koerner, 51 Mo. 174; S. v. 821; Dean v. S., 93 Ga. 184, 18 S E Miller, 36 La. 158; McGlerkin v. S., 557; P. v. Eppinger, 114 Cal. 350, 46 20 Fla. 879. Eac. 97; S. v. Moses, 139 Mo. 217- 40 "Bromley v. P., 150 111. 297, 37 S. W. 883; Mingia v. P., 54 111. 278; N. E. 209; Ottawa R. Co. v. McMath, Vick v. S. (Tex. Or., 1899), 51 S. W 91 111. 104. 1117. hughes' c. l. — 56 882 hughes' criminal law. § 3314 ered evidence should be taken, setting out the facts in detail, or the absence of such witnesses accounted for." That the people may file counter affidavits on a motion for a new trial is recognized as proper practice.^" Article VI. Motion^ When Unnecessary. § 3314. When motion not essential. — ^A party is not boimd to enter a motion for a new trial where the errors of law can be reached by a motion in arrest of judgment, as where the error appears in the plead- ings or on the face of the judgment and the like.^^ § 3315. Overruling motion indirectly. — The court, in rendering final judgment without disposing of a motion for a new trial or a motion in arrest, in effect overrules such motion.^^ Article VII. New Trial Discretionary. § 3316. New trial, discretionary with court. — The granting of a new trial upon motion, on the grounds of newly discovered evidence since the verdict, is in the discretion of the court, and its action wiU not be reversed by a court of review, unless it clearly appears that the • exercise of such discretion was abused.^* Article VIII. Impeaching Verdict. "§ 3317. Jurors can not impeach verdict. — Jurymen can not give evidence to impeach their own verdict in a case, on motion for a new trial; nor can any other person who got his information from the jurymen.^* Article IX. Influencing Jury; Disqualification. § 3318. Jury improperly influenced. — The jury, while deliberating on their verdict, had a volume of opinions containing a report of a »S. v. Nettles, 153 Mo. 464, 55 S. 5 N. E. 166; P. v. Trezza, 128 N. Y. W. 70. 529, 8 N. Y. Cr. 283; P. v. Demas- " Yates V. P., 38 111. 527; Keenan ters, 109 Cal. 607, 42 Pac. 236; Har- V. P., 104 111. 385; P. v. Cesena, 90 less v. U. S., 92 Fed. 353; S. v. Brock- Cal. 381, 27 Pac. 300; Smith v. S., haus, 72 Conn. 109, 43 Atl. 850. See 14a Ind. 685, 42 N. B. 913. P. v. Phelan, 123 Cal. 551, 56 Pac. » S. V. Phares, 24 W. Va. 657; Hen- 424. derson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534. "Allison v. P., 45 111. 38. See " Mclntyre v. P., 38 111. 521. "Verdict." " Com. V. Ruisseau, 140 Mass. 363, § 3319 NEW TRIAL. 883 previous trial of the same case. Held a sufficient ground for a new trial, it not appearing that they did not read the report of the case therein reported.^" After the jury had retired to consider of their verdict, a pistol which had been shown to them on the trial, but not identified as the one used in the killing, was sent to the jury without the prisoner's consent. Held error.^* § 3319. Disqualified juror. — The fact that one of the jurors who tried the cause was, after verdict, discovered to be disqualified — that is, that he could have been rejected for cause — does not necessarily entitle the defendant to a new trial. The court will exercise a dis- cretion in such case.'^^ When a new trial is asked on the ground of the disqualification of a juror, it must affirmatively appear that the accused had no knowledge of the disqualifications until after the jury had been impaneled, when it was too late to take the objection by challenge.** § 3320. Disqualified juror — ^When error. — A juror having on his examination stated that he was a citizen of the United States, the defendant had a right to rely on the truthfulness of such statement; but after verdict it was discovered that the juror was not a citizen of the United States. Held that the defendant did not waive the dis- qualification of such juror.** Where the accused has exhausted all his peremptory challenges and a disqualified juror has been forced upon him by overruling his challenge for cause, a new trial will be granted.^" Article X. Heaking of Motion by Judge. § 3321. Same judge to hear motion. — Where a motion for a new trial is made upon the minutes of the court, it is imperative that such motion should be heard by the judge who tried the cause, unless the party making the motion consents that it may be heard by some other judge.^* " Jones V. S. 89 Ind. 82. Contra, " P. v. Reece, 3 Utah 72, 2 Pac. 61, S. V. Harris, 34 La. 118. 4 Am. C. R. 527; Quinn v. Halbert, "Yates V. P., 38 111. 527. 52 Vt. 365; Hill v. P., 16 Mich 351. " S. V. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 See S. v. Giron, 52 La. 491, 26 So. S. E. 982, 9 Am. C. R. 631; P. v. 985. ,„„ ,„ ., ^„ ^t ^ Reece, 3 Utah 72, 2 Pac. 61, 4 Am. ^ Spies v. P., 122 111. 1, 12 N. E. C. R. 527. 865, 17 N. E. 898. "P. V. Scott, 56 Mich. 154, 22 N. =' Ohms v. S., 49 Wis. 415 3 Am. W. 274, 6 Am. C. R. 349; S. v. Moats, C. R. 368, 5 N. W. 827; U. S. v. 108 Iowa 13, 78 N. W. 701; S. v. Harding, 1 Wall. Jr. 127; Warram Bussamus, 108 Iowa 11, 78 N. W. 700. v. Smith, 2 Buls. 136. 884 hughes' criminal law. § 3322 Article XI. New Evidence, Cumulatitb. § 3322. New evidence only cumulative. — A new trial will not be granted on newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative, and not conclusive in its character.''^ Newly discovered evidence which tends to destroy or impeach the testimony on which a convic- tion was had can not be regarded as merely cumulative.^* Article XII. Nature of New Evidence. § 3323. New evidence should change result. — The nature of the newly discovered evidence should be of such a kind and quantity as, when considered with all the other evidence, would probably have re- sulted in a verdict of not guilty, had it been introduced on the trial. It should be of a conclusive character.^* If the newly discovered evidence is of a different kind or character from that adduced on the trial, and of a conclusive character, a new trial should be granted.^* A new trial should have been granted in a case where (the evidence being purely circumstantial) the defendant was wrongfully im- peached by testimony discovered to be untrue, as to being able to enter a railroad car without breaking the seal.^° ^ Spahn V. P., 137 III. 545, 27 N. E. Scruggs v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 622, 34 688; BuUiner v. P., 95 111. 394; Wal- S. W. 951; S. v. Tyson, 56 Kan. 686, lace V. S., 110 Ga. 284, 34 S. E. 852; 44 Pac. 609. Higgins V. P., 98 111. 519; McCoUom "= Dennis v. S., 103 Ind. 142, 2 N. E. V. Indianapolis, etc., St. R. Co., 94 349, 5 Am. C. R. 476; Underhill Cr. 111. 534; Abrahams v. Weiller, 87 Ev., § 519. 111. 179; S. V. Lejeune, 52 La. 463, 26 ^Bean v. P., 124 111. 576, 16 N. B. So. 992; Langdon v. P., 133 111. 409, 656; Grant v. S., 97 Ga. 789, 25 S. E. 24 N. E. 874; Hayne New Trial and 399; Klein v. P., 113 111. 596; Baker Appeal, §§ 90-92; Dyer v. P., 84 111. v. S., Ill Ga. 141, 36 S. E. 607; S. v. 625; Underhill Cr. Ev., § 522; Adams Tall, 43 Minn. 273, 45 N. W. 449; V. P., 47 111. 381; P. v. McDonell, 47 Hall v. S., 110 Ga. 314, 35 S. E. 153; Cal. 134, 2 Green C. R. 442; Wil- Clark v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. 30, 40 S. W. liams V. P., 164 111. 484, 45 N. B.'987; 992; P. v. Benham, 63 N. Y. Supp. Read v. Com., 22 Gratt. (Va.) 924, 923, 14 N. Y. Cr. 434; Field v. Com., 1 Green C. R. 280; P. v. Urquidas, 96 89 Va. 690, 16 S. B. 865; S. v. Cush- Cal. 239, 31 Pac. 52; Stalcup v. S., enberry, 157 Mo. 168, 56 S. W. 737; 129 Ind. 519, 28 N. E. 1116; S. v. S. v. Armstrong, 48 La. 314, 19 So. Johnson, 72 Iowa 393, 34 N. W. 177; 146; S. v. Poster, 79 Iowa 726, 45 P. V. Demasters, 109 Cal. 607, 42 N. W. 385; Williams v. U. S., 137 Pac. 236; Casey v. S., 20 Neb. 138, U. S. 113, 11 S. Ct. 43; Prewett v. 29 N. W. 264; Smith v. S., 143 Ind. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 879. 685, 42 N. E. 913; S. v. Whitmer, 77 ^^^ Fletcher v. P., 117 111. 190, 7 Iowa 557, 42 N. W. 442; Tripp v. S., N. E. 80; Dennis v. S., 103 Ind. 142, 95 Ga. 502, 20 S. E. 248; P. v. Pea- 5 Am. C. R. 476, 2 N. E. 349; Long cock, 5 Utah 240, 14 Pac. 334; S. v. v. S., 54 Ga. 564. Starnes, 97 N. C. 423, 2 S. E. 447; ''"Keenan v. P., 104 111. 386. i 3324 NEW TRIAL. 885 § 3324. Witness admitting perjury; no ground.— The mere fact that a witness, upon whose testimony principally a conTietion was procured, admits, after giving his testimony, that he deliberately tes- tified falsely on matters material, will not necessarily be ground for a new trial. The court is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses giving the newly discovered evidence, and for the purpose of testing their credibility may examine them in open court.^' Article XIII. New Evidence Only Impeaching. § 3325. New evidence merely impeaching. — It is not error to re^ fuse a new trial where the testimony introduced as newly discovered is merely in the nature of impeaching evidence.''' Article XIV. NEGLieENCE of Party. § 3326. Party guilty of negligence. — ^Where the newly discovered evidence is such that the defendant or his counsel could have discov- ered it by ordinary diligence or prudence before the trial, and no suffi- cient reasons appearing to prevent them from having made such dis- covery, then a new trial will not be granted on that ground.^' Evi- dence mentioned in the application as additional evidence can not be regarded as newly discovered if known to the defense at or before the trial.^" When newly discovered evidence is presented as grounds fbr a new trial, it must appear that such evidence has been discovered =' Dennis v. S., 103 Ind. 142, 2 N. Grate v. S., 23 Tex. App. 458, 5 S. W. B. 349, 5 Am. C. R. 476; Moore v. S., 245; XJnderhill Cr. Ev., § 521; Ford S6 Tenn. 209, 33 S. W. 1046; P. v. v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 280, 51 S. W. 935. Shea, 38 N. Y. Supp. 821, 16 Misc. ^ Klein v. P., 113 111. 596; Bean v. Ill; Shackelford v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 P., 124 111. 576, 16 N. B. 656; S. v. S W 884. Brnest, 150 Mo. 347, 51 S. W. 688; " Grady v. P., 125 111. 126, 16 N. E. Isaacs v. P., 118 111. 538, 8 N. B. 821; €54; Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Howell v. P., 178 111. 181, 52 N. E. Gould, 80 111. 395; Gilmore v. P., 124 873; S. v. Lejeune, 52 La. 463, 26 So. 111. 383, 15 N. E. 758; Fletcher v. P., 992; Dansley v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 117 111. 189, 7 N. E. 80; Priedberg v. 53 S. W. 105; P. v. Soap, 127 Cal. P. 102 111. 165; Shilling v. S. (Tex. 408, 59 Pac. 771; S. v. Joseph, 51 La. €r.) 51 S. W. 240; Tobin v. P., 101 1309, 26 So. 275. Ill 124- ¥/omble v. S., 107 Ga. 666, "Langdon v. P., 133 111. 409, 24 33 S B. 630- Whitney V. S., 154 Ind. N. B. 874; P. v. Moore, 62 N. Y. B73 57 N. B. 398; Wright v. S., 44 Supp. 252, 14 N. Y. Cr. 387; Wolf v. Tex 645- S v Potter, 108 Mo. 424, S. (Tex. Cr., 1899), 53 S. W. 108; 22 S w'89- Pease v. S., 91 Ga. 18, Sanders v. S. (Tex. Cr., 1900), 55 16- s' Ct' 113; Meurer v. S., 129 Ind. S. W. 50; Hardin v. S., 107 Ga. 718, 587 '29 N B. 392- Hudspeth v. S., 33 S. B. 700 l P. v. Griner, 124 Cal. 65 Ark. 323, 18 S. W. 183; S. v. 19, 56 Pac. 625. Chambers, 43 La. 1108, 10 So. 247; 886 hughes' criminal law. § 332t since the trial, and that the party has not been guilty of negligence ia not discovering and producing it on the former trial.'^ If the de- fendant's witness is sick, he should make application to continue if he desires to avail himself of the testimony of such witness. Not having done so, he can not assign such sickness as ground for a ne# trial.^2 Article XV. Eeversal, When. § 3327. Eeversal on evidence — ^When. — A new trial, on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, ought not to be granted only in case of a plain deviation, and not in a doubtful one,^ merely because the court would have given a different verdict, since that would be to assume the province of the jury.'' To justify a re- versal on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient, it must ap- pear that the finding of the jury was not sustained by the evidence, or that it was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence.** Article XVI. Examining Other Witnesses. § 3328. Examining witnesses without notice. — Indorsing witnesses^ names on the indictment after going to trial, without leave of the court, is ground for a new trial."' =» Spahn V. P., 137 111. 544, 27 N. B. Magers, 36 Or. 38, 58 Pac. 892; Lig- 688; Isaaci v. P., 118 111. 538, 8 N. B. gett v. P., 26 Colo. 364, 58 Pac. 144. 821; Klein v. P., 113 111. 596; S. v. == Tobin v. P., 101 111. 124. Hall, 97 Iowa 400, 66 N. W. 725; »»Read v. Com., 22 Gratt. (Va.) Williams v. P., 164 111. 483, 45 N. B. 924, 1 Green C. R. 278; Brugh v. 987; Feinberg v. P., 174 111. 609, 51 Shanks, 5 Leigh (Va.) 598; Bell v. N. B. 798; Gaddis v. S., 91 Ga. 148, Alexander, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 1; S. v. 16 S. B. 936; S. v. Gunagy, 84 Iowa Zeigler, 40 W. Va. 593, 10 Am. C. R. 177, 50 N. W. 882; S. v. Moses, 139 476, 21 S. B. 763. Mo. 217, 40 S. W. 883; Klink v. P., »* Steffy v. P., 130 111. 99, 22 N. E. 16 Colo. 467, 27 Pac. 1062; S. v. 861, citing Gainey v. P., 97 111. 270; Keaveny, 49 La. 667, 21 S. W. 730; Hanrahan v. P., 91 111. 142; Rogers Ford V. S., 91 Ga. 162, 17 S. B. 103; v. P., 98 111. 581; RafEerty v. P., 72 Washington v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 154, 32 111. 37; Mooney v. P., Ill 111. 388. S. W. 693; Field v. Com., 89 Va. 690, =°1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 239; P. v. Mo- 16 S. E. 865; S. v. Crawford, 99 Mo. ran, 48 Mich. 639; Stevens v. S., 1& 74, 12 S. B. 354; S. v. Reinheimer, Neb. 647. 28 N. W. 304. 109 Iowa 624, 80 N. W. 669; S. V. CHAPTER LXXXIX. SENTENCE. Art. I. Defendant's Presence, . . II. Asking Defendant, . . . III. Sentence, When, ... IV. Changing Penalty, . . . V. Sentence, Several Counts, VI. Sentence, When Cumulative, VII. Sentence, Valid in Part, . . VIII. Alternative Sentence Improper, IX. Eeversal for Proper Sentence, X. Eeversal, on Void Sentence, . XI. Sentence, When Several Defendants, XII. Validity of Judgment, §§ 3339-3331 3332 3333-3334 3335 3336-3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 Article I. Defendant's Presence. § 3329. Defendant's presence essential. — The defendant can not be lawfully sentenced on the verdict of a jury, in a felony case, in his absence.^ If there is to be imprisonment or any other punishment higher than a fine, whether in treason, felony or misdemeanor, the defendant must be personally present at every stage of the trial, in- cluding sentence on the verdict.^ No presumption will be indulged in that the prisoner was present when sentenced if the record fails to show it.* ' Harris v. P., 138 111. 65, 27 N. B. 706; Harris y. P., 130 111. 460, 22 N. B. 826; Ball v. U. S., 140 U. S. 118, 11 S. Ct. 761; Dougherty v. Com., 69 Pa. St. 286; Mapes v. S., 13 Tex. App. 85. See Fanning v. Com., 120 Mass. 388. See "Trial and Inci- dents." ' Harris v. P., 130 111. 460, 22 N. B. 826; Rolls v. S., 52 Miss. 391; S. v. Davenport, 33 La. 231; Hooker v. Com., 13 Gratt. (Va.) 763; Cook v. S., 60 Ala. 39, 3 Am. C. R. 304; Fielden v. P., 128 111. 599, 21 N. E. 584; S. V. Cross, 27 Mo. 332. Contra, Jackson v. S., 49 N. J. L. 262, 9 AtL 740, 7 Am. C. R. 80. " French v. S., 85 Wis. 400, 9 Am. (887) S88 hughes' criminal law. § 3330 § 3330. Defendant absconding before verdict. — ^Where the defend- ant voluntarily abandons the court room after the trial is entered upon, and refuses to appear, it is held that he waives his right to be present, and the court may proceed to final judgment in his absence.* § 3331. Presence, when not essential. — The defendant is not re- quired to be present when any orders are entered in his ease in the supreme court. The presence of the defendant is only required in the trial court." The presence of the defendant is not necessary at the time of sentence where the penalty to be imposed is only a fine.* Aeticle II. Asking Defendant. § 3332. Asking defendant before sentence. — A failure to ask the defendant if he has anything to say why sentence should not be pro- nounced against him is no ground for error, unless in capital cases.'' Aeticle III. Sentence, When. § 3333. Sentence at term of conviction unless continued. — ^The defendant having been found guilty generally, upon an indictment alleging several distinct offenses, and sentenced thereunder upon some of the counts, and imprisoned, he can not thereafter, at a future term, be sentenced on the other counts, where the cause was not continued for that purpose, even though the first sentence was erroneous.* The court may enter judgment in part (to pay costs) and continue, and the sentence may be passed on the defendant at a future term, if a C. R. 353, 55 N. "W. 566. But see 29 Atl. 505, 9 Am. C. R. 532; S. v. "Williams v. S., 41 Fla. 295, 27 So. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518; Gillespie v. P., 869; Sudduth v. S., 124 Ala. 32, 27 176 111. 246, 52 N. E. 250; S. v. Ball, So. 487; Lewis v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 27 Mo. 324; 4 Bl. Com. 375; Bressler 397. V. P., 117 111. 444, 8 N. E. 62. Right ♦ Sahlinger v. P., 102 111. 246; Har- waived: 6annon v. P., 127 111. 507, ris V. P., 130 111. 461, 22 N. B. 826; 21 N. E. 525, 11 Am. R. 157; S. v. Ross V. S., 20 Ohio 33; Hill v. S., Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 36 Am. R. 89. 17 Wis. 697; Stubbs v. S., 49 Miss. See also McCue v. Com., 78 Pa. St. 716, 1 Am. C. R. 609. 185, 1 Am. C. R. 272; Jones v. S., 51 = Fielden v. P., 128 111. 601, 21 N. E. Miss. 718; Messner v. P., 45 N. Y. 1; 584; Com. v. Costello, 121 Mass. 371; Sarah v. S., 28 Ga. 576. Contra, Ball P. V. Clark, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 360. v. U. S. 140 U. S. 118, 11 S. Ct 761; "Harris v. P., 130 111. 460, 22 N. E. 2 Hale P. C. 401; Croker v. S., 47 «26; Young v. S., 39 Ala. 357; Gor- Ala. 53. don V. S., 13 Tex. App. 196. " Com. v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, 23 'Gannon v. P., 127 111. 521, 21 N. Am. R. 326; P. v. Kennedy, 58 Mich. E. 525; Warner V. S., 56 N. J. L. 686, 372, 25 N. W. 318. § 3334 SENTENCE. .889 general order of continuance of all undisposed-of cases is entered. Such general order holds the jurisdiction." Sentence may be pro- nounced at a future term after conviction if in the meantime the case is continued from term to term." A general order of continuance of all cases not otherwise disposed of will continue a case not docketed if the defendant is on bail." Where a record does not show a con- tinuance from one term to another, in the absence of such showing, the presumption is that such cause was continued in the manner al- lowed by the statute and for the reasons therein specified." § 3334. Sentence at future term. — Where the defendant enters a plea of guilty, the court may defer sentence until the next term with- out losing jurisdiction. The court is not bound to sentence the de- fendant at the term at which he pleads guilty. But the cause should be continued for that purpose.^* Judgment was postponed at the re- quest of the defendant from the 18th to the 22d of December (De- cember term) to enable his counsel to move for a new trial and ar- rest of judgment. On that day (22d) he did not appear to make his motion; hence he must have consented to the delay — to the next term. The jurisdiction was not defeated.^* Defendant was tried and convicted at the November term, 1882, and he appealed to the supreme court. The cause was stricken from the docket of that court because the record failed to show a final judgment. There- after, at the June term, 1885, of the trial court, the defendant being on bail, was sentenced on the previous verdict. Held the court had power ; that the continued delay was caused by the defendant.^^ De- fendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court suspended sentence un- til the first day of the next term, giving the defendant his liberty on his own recognizance. At the October term next another judge hold- ing the co^:^^t sentenced the defendant. Held error.^' 'Ex parte Williams, 26 Fla. 310, " Ledgerwood v. S., 134 Ind. 81, 33 8 So. 425; S. v. Davis, 31 La. 249; N. E. 631; Gray v. S., 107 Ind. 177, Brown v. Rice, 57 Me. 55. See P. v. 8 N. E. 16; Thurman v. S., 54 Ark. Felker, 61 Mich. 110, 27 N. W. 869, 120, 15 S. "W. 84; P. v. Felix, 45 Cal. 8 Cr. L. Mag. 821; Com. v. Mayloy, 163; P. v. Reilly, 53 Mich. 260, 18 57 Pa. St. 291. N. W. 849. >° Clanton v. S., 96 Ala. Ill, 11 So. " P. v. Everhardt, 104 N. Y. 591, 299; Gibson v. S., 68 Miss. 241, 8 So. 11 N. E. 62. 329; S. v. Gotten, 36 La. 980; P. v. "S. v. Watson, 95 Mo. 411, 8 S. W. Felix, 45 Cal. 163. 383. "Ex parte Williams, 26 Fla. 310, "Weaver v. P., 33 Mich. 296, 1 8 So. 425. Am. C. R. 552. " Grady v. P., 125 111. 125, 16 N. E. 654. 890 hughes' criminal law. § 3335 Article IV. Changing Penalty. § 3335. Changing the penalty. — The court may, until the term ends, revise, correct and change the sentence. But steps taken under the sentence as a part of the execution will cut off the right to alter it even during the term. And with the expiration of the term the power expires.^^ Defendant was sentenced to the industrial school on a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary, as being under the age of eighteen, and was shortly thereafter committed to the school. During the same term of such sentence the court vacated and set aside the judgment on the grounds of mistake as to his age, and sentenced him to the penitentiary. Held, the court had no jurisdiction to vacate the ■original judgment or pronounce the second sentence.^* By the common law, if a defendant has been sentenced and paid his fine, or commenced his term of imprisonment, the court has no power to change the sentence, even at the same term; nor has the court any power to amend the record of a cause after the lapse of the term.^° The defendant entered a plea of guilty, whereupon he was sentenced to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs and to stand committed until said fine and costs were paid. These proceedings were had on May 13, 1874, but no steps were taken to carry the sentence into execu- tion. Three days afterwards, during the same term, and before the defendant had paid the fine or costs, the court changed the penalty, increasing the fine and adding imprisonment. Held the court com- mitted no error, and had power to make such change.^* Akticle V. Sentence, Several Counts. § 3336. Sentence — On several cases. — The propriety of making a sentence for one offense commence at the expiration of the imprison- "Bish. Cr. Proc, § 1298; Ex Or. 312, 2 Pac. 191; P. v. Liscomb, 60 parte Friday, 43 Fed. 916, 8 Am. C. N. Y. 589; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. R. 355; S. v. Gray, 37 N. J. L. 368, (TJ. S.) 163; P. v. Meservey, 76 Mich. 1 Am. C. R. 556; Ex parte Williams, 223, 42 N. W. 1133. 26 Pla. 310, 8 So. 425; Ex parte Bell, "P. v. Whitson, 74 111. 25; Ex 56 Miss. 282; S. v. Daugherty, 70 parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163; Iowa 439, 30 N. W. 685; Ex parte P. v. Kelley, 79 Mich. 320, 44 N. W. Gilmore, 71 Cal. 624, 12 Pac. 800; 615. P. V. Dane, 81 Mich. 36, 45 N. W. 655. '" Lee v. S., 32 Ohio St. 113, 3 Am. "In re Jones, 35 Neh. 499, 53 N. W. C. R. 376; Basset v. U. S., 9 Wall. 468; In re Mason, 8 Mich. 70; Brown (U. S.) 39. V. Rice, 57 Me. 55; S. v. Cannon, 11 i 3337 SENTENCE. 891 toent for another offense in another and different case of the same court can not be questioned.''^ § 3337. Sentence on several counts — Place of imprisonment. — The sentence to imprisonment should be for a specified number of days under each count upon which conviction was had, and the judgment should require that the imprisonment under each succeeding count should commence where it ends under the preceding count, without fixing the day or hour for each or either to commence or end.^^ The court, in fixing the day and hour when imprisonment should com- mence, under each count on which a conviction was had, erred.^' It is not for the court to designate any particular jail in which the prisoner shall be confined, but simply to order him to be committed to the county jail. Committing him to a jail of another county is error.^* § 3338. Sentence on some coimts, acquits on others. — ^A judgment and sentence upon one count of an indictment definitely and conclu- sively disposes of the whole indictment, and operates as an acquittal upon, or discontinuance of, the other count or counts.^^ Where a defendant has been found guilty generally upon an indictment con- taining several counts for distinct offenses, and has been sentenced on some of the counts to imprisonment, and has been imprisoned under such sentence, he can not, at a subsequent term, be brought up and sentenced anew upon another count in the same indictment.^* »^ Fitzpatrick v. P., 98 111. 274; Ex =' Johnson v. P., 83 111. 437; S. v. parte Irwin, 88 Cal. 169, 25 Pac. Smith, 10 Nev. 106, 125; ClifEord v. 1118; Johnson v. P., 83 111. 431; 1 S., 30 Md. 575; Ex parte Gibson, 31 Bish. New Cr. L., § 1327; Eldridge Cal. 619, 91 Am. D. 546. Compare V. S., 37 Ohio St. 191; Mims v. S., 26 Ex parte Gafford (Nev., 1899), 57 Minn. 498, 5 N. W. 374; In re Walsh, Pac. 484. 37 Neb. 454, 55 N. W. 1075, 9 Am. "'Dyer v. P., 84 III. 625; Mullinix C. R. 653; Ex parte Hibbs, 26 Fed. v. P., 76 111. 211; Keedy v. P., 84 421; In re Jackson, 3 McArthur (D. 111. 569. C.) 24 4 Am. C. R. 569. Contra, P. =»Com. v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, 2 V. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559; Prince v. Am. C. R. 504; Stoltz v. P., 4 Scam. S. 44 Tex. 480, 1 Am. C. R. 545; (111.) 168; Guenther v. P., 24 N. Y. Lamphere's Case, 61 Mich. 105, 27 100; S. v. Hill, 30 Wis. 416; Wein- N. W. 882; Kennedy v. Howard, 74 zorpflin v. S., 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 186; Ind. 87 See P. v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. Girts v. Com., 22 Pa. St. 351; Nabors 559, 19 Am. R. 211. v. S., 6 Ala. 200. ^„„,, « Johnson v. P., 83 111. 43; In re ''"Com. v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317, Walsh, 37 Neb. 454, 55 N. W. 1075, 2 Am. C. R. 501-5; Com. v. Mayloy, 9 Am C. R. 654- S. v. Hood, 51 Me. 57 Pa. St. 291; Brown v. Rice, 57 363; Eldridge v. S., 37 Ohio St. 191; Me. 55. Com. v. Birdsall, 69 Pac. 482. 892 hughes' criminal law. § 3339 § 3339. Sentence should be separate on each connt. — ^The defend- ant having been convicted under several counts, there should be a separate sentence under each count.^^ Article VI. Sentence, When Cumulative. § 3340. Sentence cunmlative. — ^On a conviction upon several dis- tinct counts, and the court sentences the prisoner to ten days' im- prisonment upon each count, the imprisonment on each count com- menced and ended at the same time.^* Cumulative sentences in most of the states, as well as England, have been sustained without the aid of a statute.^* Article VII. Sentence, Valid in Part. § 3341. Sentence valid in part. — ^A judgment may be erroneous in part and valid as to the residue : as, for example, as provided by the statute, the court ordered that the defendant should remove the nui- sance and pay the costs ; and the court also adjudged that the defend- and should pay a fine of four dollars. The sentence to pay the fine was not warranted by the statute. Eeversed as to the fine, but af- firmed as to the residue.^" Article VIII. Alternative Sentence Improper. § 3342. Alternative sentence. — An alternative sentence, unless authorized by statute, is defective, as where the defendant is sentenced to pay a fine, and in default thereof he shall be committed to a term of imprisonment.^^ Article IX. Eeversal for Proper Sentence. § 3343. Reversal for proper sentence. — ^Where the error consists in an unlawful sentence only, and no error appearing prior to the "Fletcher v. P., 81 111. 117; P. C. R. 569; Com. v. Leath, 1 Va. Cas. V. Whitson, 74 111. 26; Mulllnlx v. 151; Ex parte Ryan, 10 Nev. 261; P., 76 111. 215; Stack v. P., 80 111. Martin v. P., 76 111. 499. 34; Day v. P., 76 111. 380; Martin v. "Henderson v. James, 52 Ohio St. P., 76 111. 500; S. v. Toole, 106 N. C. 242, 9 Am. C. R. 713, 39 N. E. 805. 736, 11 S. E. 168, 8 Am. C. R. 612; "Tafe v. S., 39 Conn. 82, 1 Green Crowley v. Com., 11 Mete. (Mass.) C. R. 629. 575; Eldredge v. S., 37 Ohio St. 191. " Donnoly v. P., 38 Mich. 756; In ""P. V. Whitson, 74 111. 27; Miller re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, 11 S. B. 244; V. Allen, 11 Ind. 389; James v. Ward, Miller v. City of Camden, 63 N. J. L. 2 Mete. (Ky.) 271. See In re Jack- 501, 43 Atl. 1069. But see Berken- son, 3 McArthur (D. C.) 24, 4 Am. field v. P., 191 111. 272, 276, 61 N. E. 96. § 3344 SENTENCE. 893 sentence, the cause will be rcTersed and remanded for proper sen- tence, and not for a new trial.'^ But when a judgment is erroneous, all former proceedings in a case of conviction are defeated by .a re- versal; it is affirmed or reversed altogether, and can not be affirmed or reversed in part.'* Article X. Eeveesal, on Void Sentence. § 3344. Eeversal on void sentence. — In the absence of a statutory provision, a court of review has no power to impose a proper sentence, nor can it remand the cause to the trial court for that purpose in a case where the trial court had exceeded its authority in sentencing the prisoner, as sentencing him to five years' imprisonment when the statute provided "not more than two years'" imprisonment. The power of the court of review in such case is limited to a simple re- versal of the judgment.** Article XI. Sentence, When Several Defendants. § 3345. Sentence, where several defendants. — If several persons are jointly indicted and convicted, they should be sentenced severally, and the imposition of a joint fine is erroneous.*^ Article XII. Validitx of Judgment. § 3346. Judgment-recitals — ^Validity. — The fact that the body of a judgment of conviction fails to show of what crime the defendant was convicted does not render such judgment void if the crime is stated in the caption; as, for example, "Tlie People v. Hutchinson. Indictment for murder."** It is not necessary to the validity of a judgment of conviction that the mode and manner of the application ''^ Wallace v. P., 159 111. 452, 42 N. »^ McDonald v. S., 45 Md. 90, 2 E 771- Harris v. P., 130 111. 457, 22 Am. C. R. 493; 4 Bl. Com. 393. But N. E. 826; S. v. McClain, 156 Mo. 99, see S. v. Taylor, 124 N. C. 803, 32 56 S. W. 731; McCue V. Com., 78 Pa. S. E. 548. St. 185, 1 Am. C. R. 271; S. v. Jolin- » Moody v. P., 20 111. 320; Mead- son 67 N C 59; S. V. Jennings, 24 owcroft v. P., 163 111. 85, 45 N. E. Kan. 642; Henderson v. P., 165 111. 303; S. v. Gay, 11 Miss 440. 611 46 N E 711; Reynolds v. S., 68 ==P. v. Murphy, 188 111. 144, 58 N. Ala. 502; 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, E. 984; Pointer v. US 151 U. S. § 1293- S. v. Baker, 58 S. C. Ill, 36 419, 14 S. Ct. 410; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, S. E. 501. § 1347. ™ Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 387. 894 HUGHKS' CRIMINAL LAW. § 3346 of the provisions of the act with reference to the parol or discharge of the defendant shall be set forth in the judgment, being mere sur- plusage.*'' " P. V. Murphy, 185 111. 627, 57 N. E. 820. CHAPTEE XC. VERDICT. Aet. I. Form : General or Special, §§ 3347-3356 II. Verdict, for Included Offense, ... § 3357 III. When Several Counts, § 3358 IV. Conduct of Jury, § 3359 * V. Impeaching Verdict, §§ 3360-3361 VI. Amending Verdict, §§ 3362-3364 VII. Sealed Verdict, § 3365 VIII. When Several Defendants, .... § 3366 IX. Eeceiving Verdict, §§ 3367-3370 X. Verdict Unlawful, §§ 3371-3373 XL Verdict Inconsistent or Uncertain, . §§ 3374-3375 XII. Jury Discharged Before Verdict, . . § 3376 XIII. Polling Jury, § 3377 XIV. Duty of Jury, §§ 3378-3379 XV. Verdict, When a Bar, § 3380 Aeticle I. Poem: Geneeal oe Special. § 3347. General or special verdict. — ^By the common law the ver- dict of the jury may be either general, guilty, or not guilty; or spe- cial, setting forth all the circumstances of the case, and praying the judgment of the court, whether, for instance, on the facts stated, if it be murder, manslaughter, or no crime at all. This is where they doubt the matter of law, ahd, therefore, choose to leave it to the de- termination of the court, though they have, a right to find a general verdict.^ A special verdict is one in which the jury set out the facts as shown by the evidence and the court determines the conclusions of law and renders judgment.* M Bl. Com. 361. Moore, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 228; Com. v. ^P. V. Ah Ye, 31 Cal. 451; S. v. Chatham, 50 Pa. St 181; S. v. Bray, (895) 896 HUGHES CRIMINAL LAW. 3348 § 3348. Special verdict — ^Facts essential. — ^Before the court is war- ranted in pronouncing the defendant guilty on a special verdict, such verdict must set forth all the essential facts necessary to constitute the offense charged.^ If a special verdict find facts of an unequivocal character, the court can declare the guilt or innocence of the de- fendant as a question of law; hut if the facts found are equivocal — may be one thing or another — then the court can not determine as a question of law the guilt or innocence of the defendant.* § 3349. Form of verdict — ^Verbal errors — ^When several counts. — "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty," is sufficient, without refer- ence to the indictment or what offense.^ "Wee, the joury, agree and find the defendant guilty as charged in the indite, and sess his find at $100. Isaa Clouse." This verdict was held sufficient.* It matters not how many counts an indictment may contain, a general verdict of guilty is a finding upon all of them/ On the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with several distinct offenses, in different counts, a verdict of "guilty on the first, second, third and fourth counts" is sufficient, and there need not be a separate verdict for each count.' The verdict of the jury was: "We, the jury, find the de- 89 N. C. 480 (intent). See S. v. NIes, 107 N. C. 820, 12 S. E. 443; Maiden v. Com., 82 Ky. 133; S. v. Spray, 113 N. C. 686, 18 S. E. 700; Com. V. Eichelberger, 119 Pa. St. 254, 13 Atl. 422; S. v. Morris, 104 N. C. 837, 10 S. B. 454. » Huffman v. S., 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; S. V. Burdon, 38 La. 357; S. v. Finlayson, 113 N. C. 628, 18 S. B. 200. * S. V. Curtis, 71 N. C. 56, 2 Green C. R. 748; 2 Hawk. P. C. 622; 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, § 1006. ° Armstrong v. P., 37 111. 462 ; Bond V. P., 39 111. 27; S. v. Nowlan, 64 Me. 531; P. v. Perdue, 49 Cal. 425; Lovell V. S., 45 Ind. 550; Arnold v. S., 51 Ga. 144; S. v. Hudson, 74 N. C. 246; Preuit v. S., 5 Neb. 377; S. v. Lawry, 4 Nev. 161; Blount v. S., 49 Ala. 381; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. W. 545 ("find"); Shaw v. S., 2 Tex. App. 487 ("find"); Burgess V. S., 33 Tex. Cr. 9, 24 S. W. 286; Moore v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. 88, 33 S. W. 971; Rogers v. Com. (Va.), 19 S. B. 162; S. V. ToUlver, 47 La. 1099, 17 So. 502; Wilson v. S., 66 Ga. 591; Colip V. S., 153 Ind. 584, 55 N. E. 739; Ackerman v. S., 7 Wyo. 504, 54 Pac. 228; Gear v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 285. Contra, Robinson v. S., 54 Ala. 86. » Mitchell V. Com., 21 Ky. L. 222, 51 S. W. 17; Augustine v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 52 S. W. 77; McGee v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. 190, 45 S. W. 709. 'Armstrong v. P., 37 111. 463; S. V. Toole, 106 N. C. 736, 11 S. E. 168, 8 Am. C. R. 610; Hughes v. S., 65 Ind. 39; S. v. Berning, 91 Mo. 82, 3 S. W. 588; Hronek v. P., 134 111. 139, 24 N. E. 861; Brown v. S., Ill Ind. 441, 12 N. E. 514; Curry v. S., 7 Tex. App. 91; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N. W. 545. See 1 McClain Cr. L., § 392; P. V. Dunn, 90 N. Y. 104; S. V. Nicholls, 37 La. 779; P. v. White- ly, 64 CaL 211, 27 Pac. 1104; P. v. McFadden, 65 Cal. 445, 4 Pac. 421; P. v. Perez, 87 Cal. 122, 25 Pac. 262; Com. V. Nichols, 134 Mass. 531; Nel- son V. S., 62 Wis. 534, 9 N. W. 388; S. V. Tibbetts, 86 Me. 189, 29 Atl. 979; Ballew v. U. S., 160 U. S. 187, 16 S. Ct. 263. See Dean v. S., 43 Ga. 218; S. v. McClung, 35 W. Va. 280, 13 S. B. 654. Contra, S. v. Karlowski, 142 Mo. 463, 44 S. W. 244. »S. V. Hopkins, 94 Iowa 86, 62 N. W. 656. § 3350 VERDICT. 897 fendants (naming them) guilty of embezzlement in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and we fix the punishment of the said defendants (naming each of them) at a fine in the sum of twenty- eight dollars, and in addition thereto, at imprisonment in the peniten- tiary for the term of one year." Held sufficient to sustain a judg- ment fining each twenty-eight dollars, and imprisoning each one year. in the penitentiary.^ §3350. General verdict is finding on greater offense. — XTnder a statute which provides that when the jury find the defendant guilty of an inferior offense included in the greater charged, the verdict must specify the degree, a general verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment is a finding of the greater offense.^" § 3351. General, when several counts. — On an indictment con- taining six counts, three for misdemeanor and three felony, all re- lating to the same transaction, where the jury returned a verdict of "guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment," the logical conclusion is that the defendant was found guilty upon each of the six counts.^^ Where an indictment in one count charges the breaking and entering of a car with intent to steal, and in another count with stealing at the same time in the same car, a general ver- dict will be sustained if the punishment imposed is by law authorized to be inflicted for the offense charged in either count." When the several counts of an indictment relate to a single offense, and a con- •Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111. 85, 45 104 III. 565; S. v. Toole, 106 N. C. N. B. 303; Moody v. P., 20 111. 320. 736, 11 S. E. 168, 8 Am. C. R. 611; Compare Mootry v. S., 35 Tex. Cr. Hawker v. P., 75 N. Y. 487; Moody 450 33 S. W. 877, 34 S. W. 126; v. S., 1 W. Va. 337. See Estes v. S., Davidson v. S., 40 Tex. Cr. 285, 49 55 Ga. 131, 1 Am. C. R. 596; Tlm- S. W 372 50 S W. 365. mons v. S., 56 Miss. 786; Anony- '°S V Elvins 101 Mo. 243, 13 S. mous, 63 Me. 590; S. v. Hollenschelt, W. 937; S. V. Burke, 151 Mo. 136, 52 61 Mo. 302; Brown v. S., 105 Ind. S. W 226- Ter. v. Yarberry, 2 N. M. 385, 5 N. E. 900; Com. v. Desmar- 391; Craemer v. Washington State, teau, 16 Gray (Mass.) 1; S. v. Scrip- 168 U. S 124, 18 S. Ct. 1. See S. v. ture, 42 N. H. 485; S. v. Hall, 108 Dugan (N. J. L.), 46 Atl. 566; S. v. N. C. 776, 13 S. E. 189; Short v. P. Barnes, 122 N. C. 1031, 29 S. B. 381. (Colo., 1900), 60 Pac. 350. Contra, Allen v. S., 85 Wis. 22, 54 "Langford v. P., 134 111. 449, 25 N W 999- S V Pettys, 61 Kan. 860, N. E. 1009; Herman v. P., 131 111. 60 Pac 735 594, 22 N. E. 471; Love v. P., 160 111. "Herman v P 131 111. 603, 22 N. 503, 43 N. E. 710; Sahlinger v. P., E. 471- Curtis v. P., Breese (111.) 102 111. 244; Cook v. Ter., 3 Wyo. 259; Armstrong v. P., 37 111. 459; 110, 4 Pac. 887; Rose v. S. 82 Ind. Lyons v. P., 68 111. 271; Tobin v. P., 344; Estes v. S., 55 Ga. 131. hughes' c. l. — 57 898 hughes' criminal law. § 3352 viction upon each count requires the same Judgment and same sen- tence as a conviction upon all would, a general verdict is all the law requires.^' The indictment charging burglary and larceny growing out of the same transaction, a general verdict of guilty, fixing a pen- alty which, by law, is authorized to be inflicted for either of the two offenses, will be sustained.^* § 3352. General verdict, when some counts bad. — A general verdict of guilty will be sustained, although some of the counts of the in- dictment are defective ; there being one good count, it is suffieient.^^ At common law, upon a general verdict of guilty upon an indictment containing several counts, where some are good and others bad, the court will pronounce judgment upon the good counts upon the pre- sumption that it was to the good counts the verdict attached.^* § 3353. General verdict, when counts abandoned. — Where some of the counts of an indictment have been abandoned, a general ver- dict of guilty will be referred to such count or counts which were not abandoned by the prosecution.^^ § 3354. General verdict — On larceny and burglary. — A general verdict of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment was sustained, where the indictment contained counts in larceny, burglary and receiving.^* ^Kilgore v. S., 74 Ala. 1, 9; Hurl- bins, 123 N. C. 730, 31 S. E. 669; TDurt V. S., 52 Neb. 428, 72 N. W. 471; Haynes v. U. S., 101 Fed. 817. S. v. Wright, 53 Me. 328; S. v. Baker, "Waver v. S., 108 Ga. 775, 33 S. 63 N. C. 276. See S. v. HigM, 124 B. 423. N. C. 845, 32 S. B. 966. " Sahlinger v. P., 102 111. 244; Van- >* Lyons v. P., 68 111. 276, citing cleave v. S., 150 Ind. 273, 49 N. B. Com. V. Hope, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 5; 1060. Compare Andrews v. P., 117 Crowley v. Com., 11 Mete. (Mass.) 111. 201, 7 N. B. 265; Tobin v. P., 104 575. 111. 567; S. v. Dalton, 101 N. C. 680, "Ochs V. P., 124 111. 414, 16 N. E.' 8 S. E. 154; S. v. Stebbins, 29 Conn. 662; Duffin v. P., 107 111. 119; Hiner 463, 75 Am. D. 223; S. v. Jennings, V. P., 34 111. 304; Curtis v. P., Breese 18 Mo. 435; S. v. Davidson, 12 Vt. (111.) 260; Arlen v. S., 18 N. H. 563; 300; 1 Bish. New Cr. L., § 1015. Baker v. S., 30 Ala. 521; Mose v. S., Contra, Com. v. Haskins, 128 Mass. S5 Ala. 421; Frain v. S., 40 Ga. 529; 60; S. v. Rowe, 142 Mo. 439, 44 S. Boose V. S., 10 Ohio St. 575; S. v. W. 266. Convictions as to part: Stebbins, 29 Conn. 463, 79 Am. D. Foster v. S., 88 Ala. 182, 7 So. 185; 223; Looney v. P., 81 111. App. 370. Com. v. Lowery, 149 Mass. 67, 20 "Rice V. S., 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 215, N. E. 697; Sullivan v. S., 44 Wis. 1 Green C. R. 369; Isham v. S., 1 595; S. v. West, 39 Minn. 321, 40 N. Sneed (Tenn.) 113; Handy v. S., 121 W. 249; Fox v. S., 34 Ohio St. 377; Ala. 13, 25 So. 1023. See S. v. Rob- Oxford v. S., 33 Ala. 416; Carter v. S., 20 Wis. 647. § 3355 VEEDiCT. 899 § 3355. General verdict, murder case. — In the absence of a statu- tory requirement, a general verdict of "guilty" is equivalent to and in fact is a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, as alleged in the indictment.^® The jury shall, if they find the accused guilty, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder in the first or second degree ; the statute so provides. A general verdict of guilty on an in- dictment for murder is bad, and on such a verdict no judgment can be pronounced.^" § 3356. General verdict, where degrees — Arson. — One count of the indictment charged arson in the second degree, and another the third degree. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty "in manner and form as charged in the indictment," fixing his punishment at five years' imprisonment. Held sufiieient, with- out stating the degree of the erime.^^ Aeticle II. Verdict, eok Included Offense. § 3357. Verdict for lesser, included offense, — If a lesser offense be included in the greater by the pleadings, a conviction may be had of the lesser.^^ A verdict finding the defendant guilty of a lower de- gree included in the greater offense is equivalent to a verdict of not guilty of the greater.^' All ingredients of the lesser ofEense must be included in the greater before a verdict on the lesser will stand.^* Under an indictment for the higher crime, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the lower (included in the higher) if they en- tertain a reasonable doubt as to which of the two offenses he is guilty.^^ "P V RuKK 98 N. Y. 537, 5 Am. B. 471; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 83; Ken- C. R.'255; S v. Gilchrist, 113 N. C. nedy v. P., 122 111. 655, 13 N. E. 213; 673 18 S E 319; Curtis v. S., 26 Whar. Cr. PI. & Pr. (8tli ed.), 246-7; Ark. 439. See the following cases in Howard v. S., 25 Ohio St. 399, 2 Am. general: S. v. Treadwell, 54 Kan. C. R. 447; Clem v. S., 42 Ind. 420, 513, 38 Pac. 813'; S. v. Sivils, 105 Mo. 2 Green C. R. 690, 13 Am. R. 369; 530 16 S W 880; Hays v. S., 33 Davis v. S., 39 Md. 355; Buckner v. Tpx Cr 546 28 S W. 203; In re Com., 14 Bush (Ky.) 601. See Ruth Hack 52 Kan. 64, 34 Pac. 414; Ken- v. P., 99 111. 185; Earll v. P., 73 111. '^^ik^s^-t^O Md. 402, 4 '%.. Stanley, 42 La. 978, 8 S. ^4^ ?• greti%'- R. ^^'mcf v! Z'. I IhfTT^i% '^i^l S., 3 Ohio St. 89; S. v. Reddick, 7 75 Kan. 143; Ford v. S., 12 Md. 514. -Moore t- P- 26 lU. App 137, Contra Bilansky v. S., 3 Minn. 427. Carpenter v. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 197, -S V Sivils 105 Mo. 530, 16 S. Scott v. S., 60 Miss 268 See Beck- W 880 Hall V. S., 3 Lea (Tenn.) with v. P., 26 111. 500; 1 Roscoe Cr. 552; Davis v. S., 52 Ala. 357. ^X'^^^ „ .q a v ia7 4 c! w ^^ Herman v. P., 131 111. 594, 22 N. '= Haley v. S., 49 Ark. 147, 4 S. ^. 900 hughes' criminal law. § 3358 Akticle III. When Several Counts. § 3358. Verdict silent, or disagreement on some counts. — Where the jury find the defendant guilty on one count of an indictment of several counts, and say nothing as to the other counts, this is equiva- lent to "not guilty" as to such other counts.^" Where an indictment contains several distinct offenses in separate counts a verdict of guilty on some of the counts may be received, although the verdict states a disagreement as to other counts. The language of the verdict referring to the disagreement will be regarded as surplusage.^^ Article IV. Conduct of Jury. § 3359. Jury drinking intoxicants. — Where the proof is clear and undisputed that the Jury were drinking intoxicating liquors while they were actually deliberating upon their verdict in a capital case, and convicted the accused, such conviction should not be allowed to stand.^* But generally, the mere fact that the jury drank intoxicat- ing liquors is not sufficient to set aside the verdict without a showing that it did or might have affected the result.^" Article V. Impeaching Verdict. § 3360. Impeaching verdict by jurors. — Affidavits of the jurors who tried a ease will not be received to impeach their verdict.'" Nor 746, 7 Am. C. R. 331; P. v. Jones, 53 E. 353; Silvester v. U. S., 170 U. S. Cal. 58; S. v. Painter, 67 Mo. 85; P. 262, 18 S. Ct. 580. See Com. v. V. McGowan, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 386; Hackett, 170 Mass. 194, 48 N. B. S. V. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; Hickey 1087. See also Davis v. S., 75 Miss. V. S., 23 Ind. 21. 637, 23 So. 770, 941 (two defend- =» Thomas v. P., 113 111. 531, 5 Am. ants). C. R. 127; P. V. Whitson, 74 111. 20; ^P. v. Lee Chuck, 78 Cal. 317, 20 Stoltz V. P., 4 Scam. (111.) 169; S. v. Pac. 719, 8 Am. C. R. 445; Jones v. Belden, 33 Wis. 120; S. v. Hill, 30 S., 13 Tex. 168; Bryan v. Harrow, Wis. 416; S. v. Smith, 33 Mo. 139; 27 Iowa 494; Weis v. S., 22 Ohio St. P. V. Gilmore, 4 Cal. 376. See 486, 1 Green C. R. 618; Davis v. S., "Jeopardy." See S. V. Phinney, 42 Me. 35 Ind. 496, 9 Am. R. 760; S. v. 384; Weinzorpflin v. S., 7 Blackf. Bullard, 16 N. H. 139. (Ind.) 186; Hathcock v. S., 88 Ga. =»P. v. Anthony, 56 Cal. 397; Kee 91, 13 S. E. 959, 9 Am. C. R. 708; v. S., 28 Ark. 155; S. v. Upton, 20 Bonnell v. S., 64 Ind. 498; P. v. Mc- Mo. 398; Roman v. S., 41 Wis. 312; Donald, 49 Hun 67, 1 N. Y. Supp. Russell v. S., 53 Miss. 382; West- 703; S. V. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505, 22 moreland v. S., 45 Ga. 225; S. v. S. W. 696. Contra, Dealy v. U. S., Caulfield, 23 La. 148; Davis v. P., 152 U. S. 539, 14 S. Ct. 680, 9 Am. C. 19 111. 74; S. v. Corcoran (Idaho), 61 R. 161. See 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, Pac. 1034; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, § 999. § 1011. '"Palmer v. P., 138 111. 369, 28 N. "S. V. McGee, 55 S. C. 247, 33 S. B. 130; Marzen v. P., 190 111. 87; I 3361 VERDICT. 901 will affidavits as to statements made by the jurors to others be received to impeach their verdict.*^ § 3361. Impeaching by defendant's affidavit. — An affidavit made by the defendant to impeach the verdict of the jury which convicted him, stating the facts on information and belief, is not sufficient to warrant interfering with the verdict.'^ Article VI. Amending Verdict. § 3362. Verdict may be amended. — Defects in the form of a ver- dict should be corrected at the time the verdict is returned and before the discharge of the jury.'' The court may intercede when the jury present their verdict and have them correct any informal or insensible matters contained therein.'* And the court may, in the presence of and with assent of the jury, amend their verdict in matters of form.*"* And the jury may correct their error in announcing a verdict of not guilty, when they meant to say guilty, although the defendant may have been formally discharged." § 3363. Verdict not complete. — The verdict of the jury is not complete until it has been received and entered by the court. And the jury have the right to depart from any finding before it is received and entered.'^ Heed V. Thompson, 88 111. 245; Reins Blair v. Com., 93 Ky. 493, 20 So. v P 30 111. 274; Welsh v. S. (Neb.), 434; S. v. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 79 82 N W 368; S. v. Price, 37 La. N. W. 465; Taggart v. Com., 20 Ky. 215 6Am. C. R. 36; S. v. Underwood, L. 493, 46 S. W. 674; 1 Bish. New 57 Mo. 40, 1 Am. C. R. 261; Read v. Cr. L., § 10^3; P. v. Boggs, 20 Cal Com. 22 Gratt. (Va.) 924; S. v. 432; Com. v. Lang, 10 Gray (Mass.) Home, 9 Kan. 119, 1 Green C. R. 11; S. v. Davis, 31 W. Va 390, 7 S. 718 B. 24. See Sims v. S., 87 Ga. 569, ^'^ Allison v. P., 45 111. 37; Palmer 13 S^ E. 551. r. r. 09« V. P. 138 111. 369, 28 N. E. 130; »»Reg. v. Vodden, 6 Cox C. C. 226. Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 422, 55 N. E. »' Grant v. S., 33 Fla. 291 14 So. 619; Niccolls v. Foster, 89 111. 386. 757, 9 Am C. R. 750; Lord J. s =^ Bonardo v. P., 182 111. 422, 55 N. 16 N. H. 325; Com. v. Nicely, 130 E. 519; S. V. Mims, 36 Or. 315, 61 Pa. St. 261, 18 Atl. 737; Com. v. Car- -po- sss rington, 116 Mass. 37; P. v. Bush, 3 -Hopkins V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 552; Pool v S 87 W 619 ^- °- ^^ Ga. 526, 13 S. B. 556; S. v. Bishop, "Grant v. S., 33 Fla. 291, 14 So. 73 N. C 44 See also Com. v. Dele- 757, 9 Am. C. R. 750; S. v. Water- han, 148 Mass. 254, 19 N E 221 man 1 Npv 543- Cook v S. 26 Ga. Sledd v. Com., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 813; T^^:iivZ''k ?8 MiJs.l95; Reg. S. v Austin 6 Wis^ 205; Sargent^v. V. Mearry, 9 Cox C. C. 231; Mangham S 11 Ohio 472; Ford v S., 12 Md. V. S 87 Ga. 549, 13 S. B. 558; Bry- 514; 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, §§ 1004, ant V. S., 34 Fla. 291, 16 So. 177. 1012. =■ Godfreidson v. P., 88 111. 286; 902 hughes' criminal law. § 3364 § 3364. Surplusage in verdict. — The jury in imposing a fine (which was the duty of the judge), in addition to fixing the term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, exceeded its authority. The fine so imposed was surplusage, hut the verdict was otherwise in proper form.*' Article VII. Sealed Veedict. § 3365. Sealed verdict by agreement. — ^Where the parties agree to a sealed verdict, and that the jury may separate and return their ver- dict into court the next day, it is error for the court to send them out a second time after such separation to find or amend their verdict in substance.*' Akticle VIII. When Several Defendants. § 3366. Verdict of guilty as to some defendants. — The general rule seems to he that for all the purposes of a verdict an indictment, in which there is a joinder of ofEenses or offenders, is to be considered as a several and separate one as to each of such offenses and offenders. The jury may therefore find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to some and a no verdict as to others, because they can not agree thereon.'" WTiere two or more persons are jointly indicted and tried for the same offense, one or more may bp convicted and the others ac- quitted.*^ A verdict may be sustained as to some of the defendants and set aside as to others.*^ »» Armstrong v. P., 37 111. 462; Sargent v. S., 11 Ohio 472; S. v. Henderson v. P., 165 lU. 611, 46 N. Dawkins, 32 S. C. 17, 10 S. E. 772; B. 711; Traube v. S., 56 Miss. 153; Mercer v. S., 17 Ga. 146; Stanton McEntee v. S., 24 Wis. 43; Veatch v. v. S., 13 Ark. 317. See also Levells S., 60 Ind. 291; Stephens v. S., 51 v. S., 32 Ark. 585; Stuart v. Com., 28 Ga. 236; Bittick v. S., 40 Tex. 117. Gratt. (Va.) 950; Boyett v. S., 26 See Walston v. S., 54 Ga. 242; S. v. Tex. App. 689, 9 S. W. 275; S. v. Jenkins, 60 Wis. 599, 19 N. W. 406; Penlason, 78 Me. 495, 7 Atl. 385. Washington v. S., 117 Ala. 30, 23 Contra, Pehlman v. S., 115 Ind. 131, So. fi97. 17 N. E. 270. =° Farley v. P., 138 111. 100, 27 N. "U. S. v. Davenport, Deady 264, E. 927; S. v. MoCormick, 84 Me. 566, 1 Green C. R. 429; Com. v. Pitzwood, 24 Atl. 938; Waller v. S., 40 Ala. 325; 12 Mass. 313. P. V. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 379, " Com. v. Gavin, 148 Mass. 449, 18 29 Pac. 776; Nolan v. P., 53 Ga. 137; N. E. 675, 19 N. E. 554; S. v. Kaiser, Bryant V. S., 34 Pla. 291, 16 So. 177; 124 Mo. 651, 28 S. W. 182; S. v. 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2633; Williams Mooney, 64 N. C. 54; Roane v. S., V. P., 44 111. 481; Mills v. Com., 7 97 Ga. 195, 22 S. B. 374. Leigh (Va.) 751; Russell v. P., 44 "Vandermark v. P., 47 111. 123; 111. 509; Allen v. S., 85 Wis. 22, 54 Fletcher v. P., 52 111. 396; Anson N. W. 999; Bish. New Cr. Proc, v. P., 148 111. 497, 35 N. E. 145. § 1003, citing 2 Hale P. C. 299, 309; S 3367 VERDICT. 903 Aeticlb IX. Eeceiving Verdict. § 3367. Receiving verdict after adjournment. — ^A verdict may be receive'd after the court adjourns and before it again eonvienes.*' But Tvhen the term of court has ended it is too late to receive a yewlict.** § 3368. Eeceiving on Sunday. — The verdict of a jury may be re- ceived and entered on Sunday.^" But judgment can not be lawfully entered of record on Sunday. *° § 3369. Must be received in open court. — In all capital cases the verdict must be received in open court and in the presence of the pris- oner.^' If the parties agree that the jury may deliver a sealed ver- dict, it does not take away the right of either to a public verdict.** §3370. Presence of defendant essential. — If the prisoner is de- prived of the privilege of being present when the verdict is returned the verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted, or the judgment yill be reversed.*' Article X. Verdict Unlawful. § 3371. Verdict un,authorized by law. — On a charge of assault with intent to commit murder the jury returned a verdict of an as- sault with intent to commit manslaughter: Held error, there being no such offense in law as that stated in the verdict.^" " S. V. McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 S. v. Austin, 108 N. C. 780, 13 S. E. Pac. 356, 5 Am. C. R. 550; Barrett 219; Cook v. S., 60 Ala. 39, 3 Am. v. S., 1 Wis. 175; S. v. Barfield, 36 C. R. 304; Sperry v. Com., 9 Leigh La. 89. Contra, Longfellow v. S., 10 ( Va.) 623; Stubbs v. S., 49 Miss. 716, Neb. 105, 4 N. W. 420. 1 Am. C. R. 609; P. v. Perkins, 1 "1 Bish. New Cr. Proc, § 1001, Wend. (N. Y.) 91; Waller v. S., 40 citing Kennedy v. Raught, 6 Minn. Ala. 325; S. v. Mills, 19 Ark. 476; 155. Com. V. Tobin, 125 Mass. 203, 28 ♦"Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 386; Am. R. 220; Harding v. P., 10 Colo. Johnston v. P., 31 111. 473; Weaver 387, 15 Pac. 727; Anderson v. S:, V. Carter, 101 Ga. 206, 28 S. B. 869; 2 Wash. 183, 26 Pac. 267. See Jack- Stone V. U. S., 167 U. S. 178, 11 S. son v. S., 102 Ala. 76, 15 So. 351. Ct. 778; P. V. Lightner, 49 Cal. 226, "Nomaque v. P., Breese (111.) 150. 1 Am. C. R. 539; S. v. McKinney, 31 "Smith v. P., 8 Colo. 457, 5 Am. Kan. 570 3 Pac. 356, 5 Am. C. R. C. R. 616, 8 Pac. 920; 3 Whar. Cr. L., 551; McCorkle v. S., 14 Ind. 39. §§ 2991, 3364; Summeralls v. S., 37 "Baxter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 385; Fla. 162, 20 So. 242; Temple v. Com.. Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am. 77 Ky. 769, 29 Am. R. 442; Stubbs R. 466; Shearman v. S., 1 Tex. App. v. S., 49 Miss. 716, 1 Am. C. R. 608. 215, 28 Am. R. 402. See "Sentence." " HoUiday V. P., 4 Gilm. (III.) Ill; ■» Moore v. P., 146 111. 602, 35 N. 904 hughes' criminal law. § 3372 § 3372. Illegal verdict — ^When void. — If the jury return an illegal verdict the court may refuse to record it, and direct the jury to retire again and further consider of their verdict.^^ In a case where the jury came to the bar to deliver their verdict they declared by their foreman that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. On being polled each juror responded "guilty," without specifying the degree of murder. Such a verdict was held a nullity, the statute requiring the jury to find the degree."^ A verdict returned by the jury and de- livered to the clerk of the court during the recess of the court is null and void.^' A verdict finding "guilty," without referring to the de- fendant by his name or as defendant, is void.^* § 3373. Compromise verdict Illegal. — Where some of the jurors believe a defendant guilty of murder as charged, and the others be- lieve him innocent of any offense, it is an outrage for the jury to return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.^^ But it has been held that a verdict reached by the jury findiijg the average of their differ- ences is not of itself sufficient to render the verdict void or voidable, -where the term of imprisonment appears to be reasonable in a clear case of guilt.^° Article XI. Verdict Inconsistent or Uncertain. § 3374. Verdict inconsistent or uncertain. — Under an indictment against two or more, two can not be convicted jointly for distinct of- fenses, though of the kind charged in the indictment, committed by them severally and growing out of different transactions.^^ Two per- sons of the same name, to wit, Joseph Van Meter and Joseph Van Meter, were convicted and a new trial was granted as to one and overruled as to the other and judgment entered: Held that the record was uncertain without distinguishing which was given the new trial."' E. 166; Hopkinson v. P., 18 III. 265; "Williams v. S., 6 Neb. 334; S. v. S. V. White, 41 Iowa 316; P. v. Lll- McCormick, 84 Me. 566, 24 Atl. 938. ley, 43 Mich. 521, 5 N. W. 982; »" S. v. Bybee, 17 Kan. 462, 2 Am. Wright V. P., 33 Mich. 300, 1 Am. C. R. 453. C. R. 245. »» Cochlln v. P., 93 111. 413, citing ■» McCoy V. S., 52 Ga. 287, 1 Am. Thompson's Case, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 638. C. R. 589; S. v. Bishop, 73 N. C. 44, "Baker v. P., 105 111. 454. Re- 1 Am. C. R. 594. pugnancy: Bell v. S., 48 Ala. 684; "^ WilUams v. S., 60 Md. 402, 4 Am. Speers v. Com., 17 Gratt. ( Va.)- 570. C. R. 416. "Van Meter v. P., 60 111. 169. "'Hayes v. S., 107 Ala. 1, 18 So. 172. § 3375 VERDICT. 905 § 3375. Verdict as to defendant's age.— Under the statute of Il- linois, when the accused is over twenty-one years of age it is not nec- essary to state his age in the verdict, but it is necessary to fix his pun- ishment in the verdict. This was the law prior to the indeterminate sentence statute.'* Article XII. Jury Discharged Before Verdict. § 3376. Discharge of jury before verdict. — "When the evidence on both sides is closed, and indeed when any evidence hath been given, the Jury can not be discharged (unless in cases of evident necessity) until they have given in their verdict, and they can not give a privy verdict. The judges may adjourn while the jury are withdrawn to confer and return to receive the verdict in open court.""" "The dis- charge of the jury in a criminal cause without the consent of the de- fendant, after it has been duly impaneled and sworn, but before ver- dict, is equivalent to a verdict of acquittal, unless the discharge was ordered in consequence of such necessity as the law regards as impera- tive."*^ In a civil case, if there seems to be no prospect of the jury agreeing, the judge must discharge the jury, even without the consent of the parties; but in a criminal case the jury can not be discharged without the consent of the prisoner merely because the court is of opinion that the jury will not be able to agree as long as the court is in session, and if the jury be discharged it has been held the prisoner is entitled to his discharge."^ Article XIII. Polling Jury, § 3377. Right to poll jury. — The accused has the right to poll the jury and can not be deprived of that right without his consent, as by receiving the verdict on Sunday, in the absence of the accused and his counsel, without notice.** It was never intended in polling a " Sullivan v. P., 156 111. 97, 40 N. " S. v. Muir, 32 Kan. 481, 5 Am. E. 288; Doss v. P., 158 111. 662, 41 C. R. 599, 4 Pac. 812; James v. S., N. E. 1093; Porter v. P., 158 111. 374, 55 Miss. 57; S. v. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102; 41 N E 886. Williams v. S., 60 Md. 402, 4 Am. ™4 Bl. Com. 360. See "Jeopardy." C. R. 416; Tilton v. S., 52 Ga. 478, 1 °* Benedict v. S. 44 Ohio St. 679, Am. C. R. 564; Com. v. Buccieri, 153 7 Am. C. R. 14, 11 N. E. 125. See P. Pa. St. 535, 26 Atl. 228; Nomaque v. T. Lightiier 49 Cal. 226; Hilands v. P., Breese (111.) 145; S. v. Callahan, Com 111 Pa. St. 1, 6 Am. C. R. 342, 55 Iowa 364, 7 N. W. 603. Contra, 2 Atl. 70. See "Jeopardy." S. v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 36 Am. »" S. V. Hurst, 11 W. Va. 54, 3 Am. R. 89. C. R. 120; Williams' Case, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 568. 906 hughes' criminal law. § 3378 jury to permit the jurors to be interrogated further than to ask each ef them the direct question : "Is that your verdict ?" If the answer is in the affirmative his answer is conclusive and further inquiry is not permissible." Article XIV. Duty of Jury. § 3378. Each juror's duty as to verdict. — ^It is the duty of jurors to consider carefully every part of the evidence, and, if necessary, reconsider it, and to hear and consider the views and arguments of their fellow jurors, but at last each one of them must act upon his own judgment and not upon that of another.''^ It is the duty of jurors in making up their verdict to consult with each other, and not to act independently of the others."*® § 3379. On assault to commit felony. — On a charge of an assault with intent to commit a felony the verdict of the jury should desig- nate the felony intended to be committed by the accused.*^ Article XV. Verdict, When a Bar. § 3380. Verdict is a bar. — A verdict either of acquittal or convic- tion is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, although no judgment has been entered upon it.°* "Bean v. S., 17 Tex. App. 60, 5 "S. v. Austin, 109 Iowa 118, 80 Am. C. R. 479; S. v. Bogain, 12 La. N. W. 303. 264. See Biscoe v. S., 68 Md. 294, ™ Brennan v. P., 15 111. 518, citing 12 Atl. 25. Mount v. S., 14 Ohio 295; S. v. Nor- "Clem V. S., 42 Ind. 420, 2 Green veil, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 24; Hurt v. S., C. R. 698, 13 Am. R. 369. 25 Miss. 878. See "Jeopardy." "Little V. P., 157 111. 157, 42 N. E. 389. CHAPTER XCI. KECOEDS. Art. I. Amendments, When, §§ 3381-3386 I\. Errors, Generally, §§ 3387-3394 III. Bill of Exceptions, Generally, ....§§ 3395-3405 IV. Writ of Error, §§ 3406-3411 V. Eemittitur; Certiorari, § 3412 Article I. Amendments, When. § 3381. Records may be amended. — Records can be amended at a subsequent term where the cause is still pending.^ But when the judgment is perfected and duly entered on the records of the court, and the term closed, and the court adjourned, the court can not have and ought not to have any supervisory power over it at a subse- quent term, except as to matters of form, on giving notice to the opposite party.* § 3382. Changes at future term. — "The court can not make an original order in a case at a term subsequent to that at which final judgment is rendered." Such order would be void.^ But errors, mistakes, or omissions of the clerk to enter in the record the orders of the court may be corrected or entered at a subsequent term, so as to 'Phillips V. P., 88 111. 160; May v. han v. P., 95 111. 166; Brown v. Rice, P., 92 111. 343; Bodkin v. S., 20 Ind. 57 Me. 55; Cook v. Wood, 24 111. 281; Franklin V. S., 28 Ala. 12; Weig- 295, 298; Becker v. Santer, 89 111. horst V. S., 7 Md. 450; Frances v. 596; LIU v. Stookey, 72 111. 495; S., 6 Fla. 313. Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. (IT. ^Cook V. Wood, 24 111. 295, 297; S.) 591; Stephens v. Cowan, 6 Watts Knefel v. P., 187 111. 214, 58 N. E. (Pa.) 511; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 388. Peters (U. S.) 480; Medford v. Dor- 'Gebbie v. Mooney, 121 111. 255, sey, 2 Wash. C. C. 433; Ex parte 258, 12 N. B. 473; P. v. Whitson, 74 Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163; S. v. 111. 25; Howell v. Morlan, 78 111. 162; Harrison, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 542. Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721; Hanra- (907) 908 hughes' criminal law. § 3383 make the record conform to the fact. There must be some memorial paper to amend by.* The entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc is always proper when a judgment has been ordered by the court, but which the clerk has failed or neglected to copy into the record."" § 3383. Memorial paper to amend by. — The minute book, journal and docket kept by the clerk of the court may be inspected and evi- dence of witnesses may be heard explaining how such books were kept and record written in determining a motion to amend the record in a cause.* It has been held that the court is not restricted to some writ- ten memorandum among papers in the case to authorize it to amend its records at a subsequent term, but that the actual proceedings of the court may be entered in the record. The court may amend from memory or any legal evidence.'' § 3384. Notice of intention to amend. — If substantial amendments of the records, based on extrinsic testimony, are to be made, it can only be done on due notice, after a solemn adjudication of the matters in open court.' An amendment to a judgment in a criminal case at the next term, in the absence of the defendant, is void and does not affect the original judgment.* § 3385. Amending indictment or affidavit. — Where, by statute, the indictment may be amended "with the consent of the defendant," the record should affirmatively show that the consent of the defendant was given to the amendment. Consent will not be inferred or pre- sumed from mere silence.^" An affidavit on a criminal charge, be- fore a justice of the peace, may be amended.^^ ♦Dunham v. Park Comrs., 87 111. Va. 796, 10 Am. C. R. 96, 22 S. E. 185; Gebble v. Mooney, 121 111. 255, 349. 12 N. E. 472; Frink v. King, 3 Scam. "Knefel v. P., 187 111. 217, 58 N. (111.) 144; Lampsett v. Whitney, 3 E. 388. Scam. (111.) 170; Atkins v. Hlnman, 'In re Wright, 134 U. S. 136, 10 2 Gilm. (111.) 437; O'Conner v. Mul- S. Ct. 487; May v. P., 92 111. 346; len, 11 111. 57; Loomis v. Francis, 17 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. (3d ed.), § 1343. 111. 206; Cook v. Wood, 24 111. 295; But see Arnold v. Com., 21 Ky. L. Ives v. Hulce, 17 111. App. 30; Tucker 1566, 55 S. W. 894. V. Hamilton, 108 111. 464; Gore v. P., 'Devine v. P., 100 111. 296; Fielden 162 111. 260, 44 N. E. 500; Fielden v. P., 128 111. 599, 21 N. E. 584. v. P., 128 111. 599, 21 N. E. 584; » Van Fleet Coll. Attack, 752, citing Church V. English, 81 111. 442; Chi- Eisner v. Shrigley, 80 Iowa 30, 45 cage Planing Mill Co. v. Merchants' N. W. 393; P. v. Whitson, 74 111. 20; Nat. Bank, 97 111. 294. Warren v. McCarthy, 25 111. 88. "Freeman Judg., § 61; Benedict " Shiff v. S., 84 Ala. 454, 4 So. 419, V. S., 44 Ohio St. 679, 11 N. B. 125, 7 Am. C. R. 242. 7 Am. C. R. 16; Burnett v. S., 14 "Truitt v. P., 88 111. 519. See Tex. 455; Weatherman v. Com., 91 § 2776. § 3386 KEOOEDS. 909 § 3386. Contradicting court records by affidavit. — A record is not commonly suffered to be contradicted by parol evidence, but when- ever a fact showing want of jurisdiction in a court of general juris- diction can be proved without contradicting its recitals it is allowable to do so and thus defeat its effect. The presumption as to the regu- larity of the record is one of fact and not conclusive. It may be re- butted.^^ The clerk's attestation imports verity, and it can not be impeached by mere ex parte affidavits filed in the clerk's office, and no averments can be taken against it.^' Article II. Ereoes, Gbneeallt. § 3387. Error must be material. — A judgment will not be re- versed where error has intervened, if it shall appear from the whole record that it could not reasonably have affected the result.^* § 3388. Errors presumed injurious. — It has been held that if any error intervenes in the proceedings on the trial, it is presumed to be injurious to the prisoner, and entitles him to a reversal of the judg- ment ; but the burden of authority is to the contrary." § 3389. Prisoner shackled in court. — Without some good reason authorizing the court to depart from the general practice in England and in this country, the shackles of the prisoner, when brought be- fore the jury for trial, should be removed." § 3390. Evidence prejudicial and irrelevant. — The admission of evidence irrelevant to the issue, if prejudicial to the defendant, is not cured by striking it out where it is likely to influence the jury." "Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.), 1355, 27 So. 887; S. v. Cunningham 407; Church Habeas Corpus, § 267; (Iowa), 82 N. W. 775; P. v. Putnam, Brown Jurisdiction, 280. See Bime- 129 Cal. 258, 61 Pac. 961; P. v. Sul- ler V Dawson 4 Scam. (111.) 533, livan, 129 Cal. 557, 62 Pac. 101; 4 Cr. L. Mag. 812; Ferris v. S. (Ind., King v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 840. 1901) 59 N E 475. *° P- '^- Devine, 44 Cal. 452, 2 Green '» Hughes' V P 116 111. 339, 6 N. C. R. 410. Contra. S. v. Preston B 55- Welbor'n v! P., 76 111. 518. (Idaho), 38 Pac. 694, 9 Am. C. R. '"Ochs V P 124 111 425, 16 N. E. 740; P. v. Wheatley, 88 Cal. 114, 26 662- Kirby v"p. 123 111. 439, 15 N. Pac. 95; Burns v. S., 49 Ala. 370, 1 B 33: Zimm v. P., Ill 111. 49; Wilson Am. C. R. 327. V P 94 111 327; Epps v. S., 102 " S. v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 2 Am. C. Ind '539 1 N B 491, 5 Am. C. R. R. 314; P. v. Harrington, 42 Cal. 532" Jennings V. P., 189 111. 324, 59 165; 4 Bl. Com. 322; Faire v. S., N E 515- P V Maine, 64 N. Y. 58 Ala. 74; Lee v. S., 51 Miss. 566. Sunn' 579 15 N. Y. Cr. 57. See also "P. v. Zimmerman, 4 N. Y. Cr. Morrison v. Com., 21 Ky. L. 1814, 56 272; 1 Roscoe Cr. Ev. 92, note. S. W. 516; S. V. Mansfield, 52 La. 910 hughes' criminal law. § 3391 § 3391. Comment on defendant's failure to testify. — The statute forbids any reference to the fact that the defendant neglecrted to testify in his own behalf. If the state's attorney violates the statute, and procures a conviction, such violation will be sufficient to reverse, even though the court interrupts counsel. The evil done by such statements can not be cured by instruction from the court.^* § 3392. Refusing counsel to talk with witnesses. — In no state of a case should the court refuse the counsel for the prisoner an oppor- tunity to converse with the witness he has subpenaed and proposes to call on the subject of his or her testimony. To so refuse is § 3393. Reversal on facts by court of review. — A case will not be reversed on questions of fact determined by the jury unless the court is clearly satisfied that the verdict is wrong as appears from all the evidence.^" § 3394. General assignment of errors. — In the assignment of errors, to state that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial, though a general assignment, is sufficient to embrace the giving or refusing of instructions and that the evidence does not sustain the verdict.^^ ^ Quinn v. P., 123 111. 346, 15 N. 102 Mo. 374, 393, 14 S. "W. 969, 15 E. 46; Baker v. P., 105 111. 457; S. W. 556. When error cured: Blume V. S., 154 Ind. 343, 56 N. E. Staples v. S., 89 Tenn. 231, 14 S. 771 (error cured); Austin v. P., 102 W. 603; Calkins v. S., 18 Ohio St. 111. 261; Angelo v. P., 96 111. 213; S. 366, 373; P. v. Hess, 85 Mich. 128, V. Banks, 78 Me. 490, 7 Atl. 269, 7 41 N. "W. 181; Com. v. Worcester, Am. C. R. 526; S. v. Balch, 31 Kan. 141 Mass. 58, 61, 6 N. E. 700; Cran- 465, 2 Pac. 609, 4 Am. C. R. 518; P. dall v. P., 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 309; S. v. V. Tyler, 36 Cal. 522; S. v. Graham, Cameron, 40 Vt. 555. See "Trial 62 Iowa 108, 17 N. W. 192; Com. v. and Incidents;" "Argument." Scott, 123 Mass. 239. See S. v. Mos- " White v. S., 52 Miss. 216, 2 Am. ley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 Pac. 782; Calkins C. R. 460, 461. V. S., 18 Ohio St. 366; Wilson v. U. ^"Cronk v. P., 131 111. 60, 22 N. E. S.. 149 TJ. S. 60, 13 S. Ct. 765; S. v. 862; McMahon v. P., 120 111. 581, 11 Mathews, 98 Mo. 125, 10 S. W. 144, N. B. 883; Rafferty v. P., 72 111. 42; 11 S. W. 1135; Staples v. S., 89 Tenn. Padgett v. S., 103 Ind. 550, 3 N. E. 231, 14 S. W. 603; S. v. Tennison, 377, 6 Am. C. R. 52; P. v. Hamilton, 42 Kan. 330, 22 Pac. 429; Showalter 46 Cal. 540, 2 Green C. R. 433; Bal- v. S., 84 Ind. 562; Com. v. Hanley, lew v. S., 36 Tex. 98, 1 Green C. R. 140 Mass. 457, 5 N. E. 468; S. v. 607; Gllman v. P., 178 111. 19, 52 Holmes, 65 Minn. 230, 68 N. W. 11; N. E. 967; S. v. Kaplan, 72 Conn. Sanders v. S., 73 Miss. 444, 18 So. 635, 45 Atl. 1018; S. v. Coates, 22 541; Hunt v. S., 28 Tex. App. 149, Wash. 601, 61 Pac. 726. 12 S. W. 737; S. ,v. Chisnell, 36 W. '^^ Shaw v. P., 81 111. 152. Va. 667, 15 S. E. 412; S. v. Moxley, ^ 3395 EECOEDS. 911 Article III. Bill of Exceptions, Generally. § 3395. Bill of exceptions at common law. — At common law a bill of exceptions could not be taken in a felony case, and it is by statute only authorized to be taken on trials at nisi prius.^^ § 3396. Bill of exceptions, when unnecessary. — The record proper " ordinarily embraces the original writ, the pleadings and the entry of verdict and judgment, and if any error is apparent on the face of these pleadings which constitute the record proper, error may be assigned upon it without the necessity of embodying the same in a bill of ex- ceptions.^* The indictment is a part of the record proper, and excep- tion need not be taken to the ruling of the court overruling a motion to quash.^* § 3397. Proceedings preserved by bill of exceptions. — A motion for new trial and other proceedings must be preserved in the record by bill of exceptions to be of any avail and to give the court jurisdiction. Affidavits in support of motions come within the rule.^^ The mere entry of exception to the rulings of the court by the clerk in the record will not preserve the same. They must be preserved by bill of exceptions.^' § 3398. Bill of exceptions by stipulation. — The parties to a cause may stipulate to file the bill of exceptions at any time either before or after the expiration of the term of the court.^'^ An unsigned statement purporting to be a stipulation that the original bill of exceptions may be embodied in the transcript of the record as a part of such transcript is not sufficient.^^ '"Fielden v. P., 128 111. 603, 21 N. 9 Am. C. R. 466; Bradshaw v. S., 17 E. 584, citing 1 Chitty Cr. L. (Sth Neb. 147, 22 N. W. 361, 5 Am. C. R. Am. ed.), 622. 500; 2 Thomp. Trials, §§ 2774, 2775; "2 Thomp. Trials, §§ 2771-2773, 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2802; Danks v. citing Preshour v. Logansport, etc., Rodeheaver, 26 W. Va. 274. Co., 104 Ind. 463, 4 N. E. 157; Bate- '"StefEy v. P., 130 111. 98, 22 N. son V. Clark, 37 Mo. 31, 34. See E. 861; Graham v. P., 115 111. 569, "Trial and Incidents" generally. 4 N. B. 790; Bedee v. P., 73 111. 321; ^ Baker v. P., 105 111. 454. See Earll v. P., 73 111. 331; 2 Thomp. Raines v. S. (Fla.), 28 So. 57. Se« Trials. § 2779; Dritt v. Dodde, 35 §§ 2847, 3397. Ind. 63. See §§ 2847, 3396. '" Harris v. P. 130 111. 457, 22 N. " g^v^ank v. Swank, 85 Mo. 198. E. 826; Eastman v. P., 93 111. 112; =« Harris v. P., 148 111. 97, 35 N. E. Bedee v. P., 73 111. 321; S. v. Pow- 756; Moore v. P., 148 111. 50, 35 N. ers, 52 La. 1254, 27 So. 654; Berne- B. 755. ker V. S., 40 Neb. 810, 59 N. W. 372, 912 hughes' criminal law. § 3399 § 3399. Bill of exceptions — ^When to be signed. — Signing and seal- ing a bill of exceptions is a judicial as well as a ministerial act, and must be signed by the judge presiding at the trial.^' A bill of excep- tions must be taken and signed during the term at which the cause was tried, except where leave is given to file the same in vacation or at some future time, nunc pro tunc.^" The court has no jurisdiction to sign a bill of exceptions at a subsequent term from and after the term of the trial of the cause, unless leave was given for that pur- pose. ^^ The court having fixed a date beyond the expiration of the term within which to file a bill of exceptions, exhausted its power and can not thereafter extend the time except by consent of both the par- ties.'^ Mandamus will lie to compel the judge to sign and seal bills of exceptions in a cause tried before him, but he must at last deter- mine the accuracy of it.^* § 3400. Time for filing fixed by statute. — Ninety days' time was allowed by the court within which to file a bill of exceptions, the stat- ute providing for only sixty days after the judgment is rendered. But the bill of exceptions having been filed within the statutory limit, it was held sufiicient to make the same a part of the record.'* § 3401. Certificate showing evidence. — It is necessary that the bill of exceptions should state that this "was all the evidence given in the cause." It is not sufiicient to state that "this was all the evidence offered on the trial of the cause," nor that "this was all the testimony given in the cause," the word testimony not being synonymous with evidence.'^ It must appear by certificate that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence, instructions, motions or other proceedings not part of the record proper.'® But it is not necessary to preserve ''"P. V. Anthony, 129 111. 218, 21 ^Robinson v. Johnson, 61 Ind. N. E. 780; Law v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 535. (N. Y.) 746; Hake v. Strubal, 121 ™ P. v. Anthony, 129 111. 218, 21 111. 321, 12 N. E. 676. N. E. 780. " Dougherty v. P., 118 111. 164, 8 =' S. v. Hunt, 137 Ind. 537, 9 Am. N. E. 673; Harris v. P., 138 111. 66, C. R. 427, 37 N. E. 409. 27 N. E. 706; Walahan v. P., 40 111. '=2 Thomp. Trials, § 2784; Central 104; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. P., 106 U. Tel. Co. v. S., 110 Ind. 203, 207, 111. 652; Jones v. S., 64 Ga. 697, 5 10 N. E. 922, 12 N. B. 136; Brickley Am. C. R. 552. See Powell v. S. v. Weghorn, 71 Ind. 497- Siple v. S., (Tex. Cr.), 57 S. W. 668 (filing). 154 Ind. 649, 57 N. E. 544. »' Harris v. P., 138 111. 66, 27 N. =« James v. Dexter, 113 111. 656; E. 706; Dougherty v. P., 118 111. 164, Bedee v. P., 73 111. 321; S. v. Hunt, 8 N. E. 673. 137 Ind. 537, 9 Am. C. R. 436, 37 § 3402 KECORDS. 913 the evidence in a bill of exceptions if the error complained of consists in the giving of instructions erroneous under any conceivable state of facts.«««- § 3403. Amendment of bill of exceptions presumed proper. — A bilf of .exceptions, having once been signed by the Judge and filed, be-- comes a part of the record and can not be amended in vaieaiiom!^ Where the court amends a bill of exceptions at a future term it will be presumed there was something to amend by, unless it appears to the contrary by bill of exceptions.'^ § 3403. Bill of exceptions — ^Amending. — When it is sought to amend or alter a bill of exceptions at future term there must be some minute or memorandum of the Judge or court to amend by.'* But a bill of exceptions may be amended where, through inadvertence or by mistake, it fails to present matters material which transpired at the trial, but notice must be given to the opposite party.'" § 3404. Defendant presumed in court. — Where the record shows the arraignment and trial were upon one day, and upon the following day the Jury returned their verdict and Judgment was rendered thereto, and no interval appearing between the trial and the Judgment, the presumption is, therefore, the prisoner remained in court the whole time.*" § 3405. Action of court presumed regular. — It will be presumed that the court convened on the day to which it adjourned, nothing to the contrary appearing by bill of exceptions.*^ The action of the trial court will be presumed to be regular until the contrary appears by bill of exceptions taken at the trial, such, for example, as keeping the Jury in custody of a sworn officer. *^ N. E. 409; Tarble v. P., Ill 111. 123; '"P. v. Anthony, 129 111. 218, 21 Bergdahl v. P. (Colo.), 61 Pac. 228; N. E. 780; Helnsen v. Lamt), 117 111. Barton v. S., 154 Ind. 670, 57 N. B. 553, 7 N. E. 75; Brooks v. Bruyn, 40 515 (Instructions); Crawford v. S., 111. 64; Wallahan v. P., 40 111. 104. 155 Ind. 692, 57 N. E. 931. « Schirmer v. P., 33 111. 284; Fad- e's s. v. Mason (Mont.), 61 Pac. field v. P., 146 111. 665, 35 N. E. 469; 861. S. V. Craton, 6 Ired. (N. C.) 164; "Wallahan v. P., 40 111. 103; De- West v. S., 22 N. J. L. 212; S. v. vine V. P., 100 111. 290. Stiefle, 13 Iowa 603. '■^ P. V. Anthony, 129 111. 218, 21 N. "■ White v. P., 81 111. 336. See E. 780; Church v. English, 81 111. Teerney v. P., 81 111. 412. 442; Cook v. Wood, 24 111. 295; Mc- « McElwee v. P., 77 111. 493; Clarke Cormick v. Wheeler, 36 111. 114. v. S., 78 Ala. 474, 6 Am. C. R. 528; hughes' c. l. — 58 914 hughes' criminal law. § 3406 Article IV. Writ of Error. § 3406. Writ of error — ^At common law. — ^A writ of error is a writ of right and can not be denied, except in capital cases.** Under the constitution of Illinois the appellant has a right to a writ of error, but not an appeal, in a criminal case.** Writ of error at common law may be brought by a party attainted for treason or felony, or after his death by his heirs or executors, to reverse an attainder of treason or felony, but by no other persons, whatever interest they may have in the reversal.*^ § 3407. Escaped prisoner not entitled. — The defendant is not en- titled to prosecute a writ of error if he escapes and fails to surrender himself to give bail.*' § 3408. Writ of error — From what court. — In all criminal cases in Illinois, where the validity of a statute is involved, the writ of error must issue out of the supreme court.*'' A writ of error in cases below the grade of felony, by statutory provision, must issue out of the ap- pellate court, and may be reviewed in the supreme court on writ of error to the appellate court.** Although the validity of a statute was involved in the trial court in a misdemeanor case, yet the cause must be taken to the appellate court by writ of error, if the constitutional question is not raised on error.*" In case a party sues out a writ of •error in the wrong court, he will, if he desires, be permitted to with- draw the transcript of the record and other documents for the purpose of filing them in the proper court.' . 50 McKinney V. P., 2 Gilm. (111.) 553; «McGowen v. P., 104 111. 100; Gardner v. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 84. Woodson v. S., 19 Pla. 549, 4 Am. See also S. v. Hunt, 137 Ind. 537, 9 C. R. 478; P. v. Genet, 59 N. Y. 80; Am. C. R. 428, 37 N. B. 409; Berne- Com. v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543; Iter V. S., 40 Neb. 810, 9 Am. C. R. Smith v. U. S., 94 U. S. 97; P. v. 466, 59 N. W. 372; Patterson v. S., Redlnger, 55 Gal.' 290. 48 N. J. L. 381, 4 Atl. 449, 7 Am. C. " Williams v. P., 118 111. 444, 8 N. R. 308. E. 841; Graham v. P., 35 111. App. "Bowers v. Green, 1 Scam. (111.) 568; P. v. Miner, 144 111. 308, 33 N. 43; Peak v. P., 76 111. 291; Stuart v. E. 40. P., 3 Scam. (111.) 403. "Weiss v. P., 104 111. 90; Smith " Andel-son v. P., 28 111. App. 317, v. P., 98 111. 407. citing Smith v. P., 98 111. 407; Bow- "Skakel v. P., 188 III. 291, 58 N. ers V. Green, 1 Scam. (111.) 42; E. 1003. French v. P., 77 111. 532; Ingraham "Baits v. P., 123 111. 428, 16 N. B. V. P., 94 111. 428. 483. See Wright v. P., 92 111. 596. «1 Chitty Or. L. 746; O'SuUivan T. P., 144 111. 607, 32 N. E. 192. § 3409 KECOEDS. 915 §3409. Writ of error— When will be dismissed. — Where the transcript of the record filed in the supreme court is imperfect, showing no convening order of the trial court, nor any of the orders or the final judgment of the, court, the writ of error will be dis- missed.^^ § 3410. Death abates writ of error. — The death of a party after he has sued out a writ of error to reverse a judgment against him abates the writ even before there is a joinder in error, and this result can not be prevented by the entry of judgment nunc pro tunc, as of a date prior to his death.^^ § 3411. Costs in prosecuting writ of error.-7-The person who prosecutes a writ of error, and succeeds in reversing the case, will be liable for costs incurred by him.""^ Article V. Ebmittitur; Ceetioeaei. § 3412. Writ of remittitur — Certiorari. — A writ of remittitur does not transmit a record back to the lower court, but it is simply a copy of the final order or judgment of the court of review, and its only mission is to inform the lower court of the action of the court of re- view.°* The circuit courts have power to award a writ of certiorari at common law to all inferior tribunals and jurisdictions wherever it is shown either they have exceeded the limits of their jurisdiction, or in eases where they have proceeded illegally, and no appeal or other mode of directly reviewing their proceedings is provided.^^ "'Harris v. P., 148 111. 97, 35 N. B. '» Sans v. P., 3 Gilm. (Ill.j 327; 756; Moore v. P., 148 111. 50, 35 N. Carpenter v. P., 3 Gilm. (111.) 148. E. 755; Lester v. P., 150 111. 416, 23 "Perteet v. P., 70 111. 177. N. B. 387, 37 N. E. 1004. See also ""P. v. Williamson, 13 111. 662, Swartzbaugh v. P., 85 III. 459; Plan- citing Park v. City of Boston, 8 ing Mill Co. v. Chicago, 56 111. 304. Pick. (Mass.) 218; Glennon v. Brit- ■» O'Sullivan v. P., 144 111. 606, 32 ton, 155 111. 237, 40 N. B. 594. N. E. 192. CHAPTBE XCII. EXTRADITION. Art. I. Constitutional Provisions, §§ 3413-3417 II. International Extradition, §§ 3418-3423 III. Interstate Extradition, §§ 3424-3425 IV. Governor Must Determine Validity, . . §§ 3436-3431 V. Extradition Warrant, §§ 3432-3453 VI. Matters of Evidence, §§ 3434-3437 VII. Habeas Corpus Proceedings, .... § 3438 Article I. Constitutional Provisions. § 3413, Constitutional provision — Misdemeanors included. — The constitution of the United States contains the following provision: "A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."^ For the purpose of enforcing this constitutional provision a federal statute was early enacted containing among other things the following : "Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice of the executive au- thority of any state or territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and 'U. S. Const, art. Iv, § 2. See Ex parte Morgan (C. C), 5 Cr. L. Mag. 698. (916) ^ 3414 EXTRADITION. 917 to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall ap- pear," etc.^* "Treason, felony or other crimes" are the words of the constitution in reference to extradition proceedings, and are compre- hensive enough to include misdemeanors as well as felonies.* § 3414. Fugitive from justice, defined. — A fugitive from justice is a person who commits a crime within a state and withdraws himself from its jurisdiction without waiting to abide the consequences of his act.' If a person commits a crime and leaves the state, he may be brought back by extradition proceeding, irrespective of his motives in leaving the state.* § 3415. Visiting another state and committing offense. — Where a person living in one state goes into another and does any act toward the commission of a criminal offense, which results in an actual offense after his return to his own state, he may be extradited as a fugitive from justice : as, where a person goes to another state and by false rep- resentation arranges to have goods shipped to him in his state, and then returns and afterwards receives the goods.^ § 3416. Escaped prisoner, a fugitive. — Where a person who is serving a term of imprisonment for the commission of a criminal offense escapes and leaves the state where imprisoned, he may be ap- prehended by extradition proceedings as a fugitive from justice." § 3417. When not a fugitive. — The prisoners were charged with the crime of murder in the state of Tennessee while they were actual- ly in the state of North Carolina. They having at no time since the homicide gone into the state of Tennessee, can not be surrendered on 'aU. S. Rev. Stat, § 5278; Act of 5 C. C. A. 29; Matter of Voorhees, Congress 1793, § 1. 32 N. J. L. 141; S. v. Hall, 115 N. C. ^Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 811, 44 Am. St. 501, 20 S. B. 729, 28 5 S. Ct. 1148, 5 Am. C. R. 221; Com. L. R. A. 294; Hibler v. S., 43 Tex. v. Johnston. 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 263; In re 197. Oreenough, 31 Vt. 279; Morton v. "In re Bloch, 87 Fed. 981; In re Skinner, 48 Ind. 123; S. v. Hudson, 2 White, 55 Fed. 54, 5 C. C. A. 29; S. v. Ohio N. P. t. For a history of the Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 35 N. W. 9; constitutional provisions and act of In re Sultan, 115 N. C. 57, 20 S. B. Congress relating to fugitives from 375, 44 Am. R. 433; Roberts v. justice, see 5 Am. C. R. 221. See Bx Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 S. Ct. 291. parte Morgan (U. S.), 5 Cr. L. Mag. "In re Sultan, 115 N. C. 57, 20 «98. S. E. 375, 44 Am. R. 433. '12 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d ' Drinkall v. Spiegel, 68 Conn. 441, «d.) 602; In re White, 55 Fed. 54, 36 Atl. 830. 918 hughes' criminal law. § 3418 the demand of that state as "fugitives from justice."^ A state may provide by statute for the surrender, upon requisition, of persons in- dictable for crimes committed in another state, although they are not "fugitives from justice."^ Article II. International Extradition. § 3418. Trial on specific offense named. — Where a defendant has been surrendered in pursuance of a treaty, for trial upon a specific charge named therein, he can not be placed upon trial for any other than the particular offense named in the extradition proceedings.*^ But the principle mentioned, that a person extradited for some par- ticular crime shall be exempt from trial on any other offense, has n» application to a case where the fugitive is brought by private in- dividuals, by sheer force, from the country to which he fled.^" § 3419. ITnlawful arrest immaterial. — The court trying a person charged with a criminal offense will not inquire into the manner of his arrest; whether brought into the jurisdiction of the court by kid- napping, abduction, force or otherwise, from another state or country, the court will have jurisdiction to try him. It is sufficient that the accused is in court.^^ § 3420. Privilege extends to included offense. — Where a person has- been surrendered by one country to another on extradition proceed- ings for some particular crime mentioned, he can not be lawfully tried on a lesser offense, though included in the crime for which he 'S. V. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 20 S. E. 6 Am. C. R. 222, 7 S. Ct. 234; U. S. 729, 10 Am. C. R. 299, 300, 28 L. R. v. Watts, 8 Sawy. 370, 14 Fed. 130; A. 289, 44 Am. St. 501; Wilcox v. S. v. Vanderpool, 39 Ohio St. 273.; Nolze, 34 Ohio St. 520; Ex parte Com. v. Hawes, 13 Bush (Ky.) 697, Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 5 S. Ct. 1148; 2 Am. C. R. 201; Foster v. Neilson, Hartman v. Avellne, 63 Ind. 344, 30 2 Pet. (U. S.) 254; Cosgrove v. Win- Am. R. 217; In re White, 55 Fed. 54, ney (U. S.), 19 S. Ct. 598; Ex parte 5 C. C. A. 29; Underbill Cr. Bv., Hibhs, 26 Fed. 421. § 497; Ex parte Knowles, 16 Ky. L. '°Ker v. P., 110 111. 627, 51 Am. 263; In re Mohr, 73 Ala. 503; P. v. R. 706; Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. Adams, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 190. See In 436. 7 S. Ct. 225. re Maney, 20 Wash. 509, 55 Pac. 930; "Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, Jones V. Leonard, 50 Iowa 106, 32 8 S. Ct. 1204; Ker v. P., 110 111. 627, Am. R. 116. 51 Am. R. 706; S. v. Kealy, 89 Iowa »S. V. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 10 Am. 94, 56 N. W. 283; Ex parte Barker. C. R. 302, 20 S. E. 729, 44 Am. St. 87 Ala. 4, 6 So. 7, 13 Am. R. 17; S.v. 501, 28 L. R. A. 294. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505, 22 S. W. 696. • U. S. V. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, See § 2574. § 3421 EXTBADITION. 919 was extradited : as, if a man be extradited for assault in the first de- gree he can not be lawfully convicted of assault in the second de- gree.^* § 3421. Offense not mentioned in treaty. — ^The existence of a treaty which provides for' extradition for certain crimes does not deprive either nation of the power and right to exercise its discretion in cases not coming within the terms of the treaty. As to crimes not enumer- ated in the treaty, each contracting party may either grant or deny to the fugitive an asylum within its jurisdiction.^' § 3422. Privilege extends in civil cases. — The privilege exempting an extradited person from being arrested and tried for any other of- fense than that for which he was extradited extends to freedom from arrest in civil cases until he shall have had reasonable time to return to the country from which extradited.^* § 3423. "Forgery" used in treaty. — The word "forgery," as used in a treaty between the United States and a foreign country, should be construed by the common law definition of forgery, which includes the uttering of forged documents.^" Article III. Interstate Extradition. § 3424. Privilege of returning not extended. — ^A fugitive from justice who has been surrendered by one state to another state of the Union, upon requisition charging him with the commission of a specific crime, can not claim exemption from indictment and trial in the state to which he is surrendered for any other and different of- fense from that designated in the requisition without first being tried on the charge for which he was extradited, or having an opportunity to return to the state from which he was extradited.^* After an ac- "P. v. Stout, 81 Hun 336, 30 N. Y. tor v. Sinnen, 76 Wis. 308, 44 N. W. Supp. 898. See In re Rowe, 77 Fed. 1099, 20 Am. St. 71, 7 L. R. A. 817. 161; P. V. Stout, 144 N. Y. 699, 39 "In re Adutt, 55 Fed. 376. N. E. 858. " Carr v. S., 104 Ala. 4, 10 Am. C. "Ex parte Foss, 102 Cal. 347, 36 R. 82, 16 So. 150; Com. v. Wright, Pac. 669, 25 L. R. A. 593, 41 Am. R. 158 Mass. 149, 33 N. E. 82; Lascelles 182, 9 Am. C. R. 305; U. S. v. v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537, 13 S. Ct. Rausclier, 119 U. S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234. 687; Lascelles v. S., 90 Ga. 347, 16 See Underbill Cr. Ev., § 495. S. E. 945, 35 Am. R. 216; S. v. Stew- »In re Reinitz, 39 Fed. 204; Mole- art, 60 Wis. 587, 19 N. W. 429, 50 920 hughes' ceiminal law." § 3425 cused person has been returned from one state to another as a fugi- tive from justice, and tried and acquitted on the charge upon which he was extradited, he may at once be rearrested and subjected to a prosecution in a civil ease. He is not entitled to the privilege of an opportunity to return to the state from which he was extradited, as in cases of international extradition.^' I 3425. Privilege — ^When extended. — ^But if the motive in resort- ing to extradition proceedings be to bring the alleged fugitive into the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of instituting a civil action against him, the parties concerned in such proceeding will not be en- titled to have him arrested in such action. "^^ Article IV. Governor Must Determine Validity. § 3426. When governor may act. — The statute of California pro- vides that a person charged in any state of the United States with treason, felony or other crime, who flees from justice and is found in California, must, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up by the governor. The governor is not authorized to act under the statute unless a proper prosecution has first been instituted in the state making such demand.'* § 3427. Governor must decide as to fugitive. — The governor of a state upon whom demand for the surrender of an alleged fugitive is ■made by the executive of another state must determine whether the person demanded is in fact a fugitive from justice ; and the fact that the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused is pre- sumptive proof that such person is a fugitive from justice.^" Am. R. 388; P. v. Cross, 135 N. Y. 1099, 20 Am. R. 71; Compton v. 536, 32 N. E. 246, 31 Am. R. 850; Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130. In re Miles, 52 Vt. 609; S. v. Glover, "Ex parte Slanson, 73 Fed. 666; 112 N. C. 896, 17 S. E. 525; In re Williams v. Bacon, 10 Wend. (N. Noyes, 17 Alb. L. J. 407; S. V. Kealy, Y.) 636; Browning v. Abrams, 51 89 Iowa 94, 56 N. W. 283. See S. v. How. Pr. (N. Y.) 172. Walker, 119 Mo. 467, 24 S. W. 1011. '"Ex parte White, 49 Cal. 433, 1 Contra. S. v. Hall, 40 Kan. 338, 19 Am. C. R. 169. Pac. 918, 10 Am. R. .200; Ex parte ^°Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 13 McKnight, 48 Ohio St. 588, 28 N. E. S. Ct. 40; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 1034. 642, 5 S. Ct. 1148; In re Hess, 5 "Reid V. Ham, 54 Minn. 305, 56 Kan. App. 763, 48 Pac. 596; In re N. W. 35; Browning v. Abrams, 51 Tod, 12 S. D. 386, 81 N. W. 637, 47 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 172. Contra, Mole- L. R. A. 566. tor V. Sinnen, 76 Wis. 308, 44 N. W. § 3428 EXTRADITION. 921 § 3428. Proof, whether fugitive — Confined to documents. — The executive of a state can not be called upon to deliver up a person charged with a criminal oifense in another state unless it appears that such person is a fugitive from justice. ^^ The governor of the state upon whom demand is made by the executive of another state for the surrender of a person charged with being a fugitive from justice can not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the person so charged. He can not look outside of the papers accompanying the requisition proceedings to determine his action.^^ A person arrested as a fugitive has a right to insist upon proof that he was actually, and not constructively, within the demanding state at the time he is al- leged to have committed the crime charged, and consequently withdrew from its jurisdiction so that he could not be reached by its criminal process.^^ § 3429. Indictment or affidavit — Sufficiency. — An affidavit made as a basis for rpquisition proceedings must charge an offense by posi- tive averments. It is not sufficient to state that the afBant 'Tias rea- son to believe and does believe" that the accused committed the crime charged.''* As a proper foundation for the demand and surrender of a person charged with being a fugitive from justice, the proceed- ings must show "a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate" in the demanding state. It is not sufficient for the extradition warrant to recite that the requisition is accompanied by a copy of a complaint, a complaint not being "an affidavit" within the meaning of the statute.^*^ If the affidavit or indictment accom- panying the requisition substantially charges the accused with the commission of a criminal offense against the laws of the state demand- ing his return as a fugitive from justice, that is sufficient; mere de- fects will not render the indictment void.^^ ''■ S. V. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 20 S. B. Tex. Cr. 108, 31 S. W. 651. See 729, 10 Am. C. R. 300, 28 L. R. A. 289. Smith v. S., 21 Neb. 552, 32 N. W. ■"P. V. Pinkerton, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 594. 199; P. V. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182. ^a s. v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, "'S. V. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 20 S. E. 24 N. W. 354; Ex parte Powell, 20 729, 10 Am. C. R. 299; Jones v. Fla. 806; In re Doo Woon, 18 Fed. Leonard, 50 Iowa 106, 32 Am. R. 116; 898, 9 Sawy. 417. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean (U. S.) "» S. v. Goss, 66 Minn. 291, 68 N. 121; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, W. 1089; Webb v. York, 79 Fed. 616; 5 S. Ct. 1148; Ex parte S., 73 Ala. Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 5 S. 503, 49 Am. R. 63; Tennessee v. Jack- Ct. 1148; Jackson v. Archibald, 12 son, 36 Fed. 258. Ohio C. C. 155; Davis' Case, 122 "Ex parte Spears, 88 CaL 640, 26 Mass. 324; Underbill Cr. Bv., § 499; Pac. 608, 22 Am. R. 341; S. v. Swope, Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 72 Mo. 399; Ex parte Rowland, 35 S. Ct. 291. 922 hughes' criminal law. § 3430 § 3430. Offense committed in demanding state. — If the extradition proceedings show that the person charged as a fugitive from justice committed a criminal offense as defined by the laws of the state de- manding his return, that is sufficient, and it is not material whether the oifense charged amounts to criminal offense under the laws of the state upon which demand is made for the fugitive.^' § 3431. Documents certified as authentic. — "The documents ac- companying the requisition papers must be certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person demanded has fled.""' AeTICLE V. EXTEADITION WaEEANT. § 3432. Extradition warrant, sufficiency. — It is not essential to the validity of an extradition warrant that it should set out in full or be accompanied by the indictment or affidavit upon which it is based.^* Where the warrant issued on extradition proceedings recites that the requisition is accompanied by a copy of the indictment certified by the governor of the state making the demand, which is "in due form," that is sufficient, under the law.** § 3433. Warrant may be revoked. — The chief executive of a state issuing an extradition warrant has power to revoke it at any time be- fore the alleged fugitive from justice has been carried out of the state.^" Aeticle VI. Mattees op Evidehtce. § 3434. Evidence of extraditable offense. — The fact that the ac- cused is charged with having committed some extraditable offense may be shown by the production of a warrant for his arrest or an "■Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97. ""Ex parte Dawson, 83 Fed. 306; "Underbill Cr. Ev., § 499, citing Ex parte Lewis, 79 Cal. 95, 21 Pac. Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223; S. 553; In re ScrofEord, 59 Hun (N. Y.) V. Goss, 66 Minn. 291, 68 N. W. 1089; 320, 12 N. Y. Supp. 943. See Kings- P. V. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438; Ex bury's Case, 106 Mass. 223; S. v. parte Powell, 20 Fla. 806. As to Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 24 N. W. authentication of documents and 354; In re Hooper, 52 Wis. 699, 58 competency of evidence relating to N. W. 741; Hackney v. Welsh, 107 international extradition, see Under- Ind. 253, 8 N. E. 141, 57 Am. R. 101. hill Or. Ev., §§ 502, 503. ™ S. v. Toole, 69 Minn. 104, 72 N. "Ex parte Stanley, 25 Tex. App. W. 53; Work v. Corrington, 34 Ohio 372, 8 S. W. 645, 7 Am. C. R. 215; St. 64. 32 Am. R. 345. P. V. Donahue, 84 N. Y. 438; Robin- son V. Flanders, 29 Ind. 10. § 3435 EXTRADITION, 923 indictment certified in due form, supported by aflBdavit, stating the facts necessary to establish the charge and to show jurisdiction.^^ § 3435. Weight or degree of evidence. — The weight or degree of evidence necessary to hold and commit an accused person on extradi- tion proceedings, either interstate or international, should generally be the same as would warrant a commitment for an offense committed in the state upon which demand is made for the return of the al- leged fugitive.^^ § 3436. Commissioner, judge of evidence. — On the hearing of an extradition proceeding before a United States commissioner, he is the sole judge of the weight and effect of the evidence introduced, and his action and determination can not be reviewed by any other court or judicial officer.^' § 3437. Documentary evidence. — A federal statute providing that in all cases where depositions, warrants or other papers are offered in evidence in extradition proceedings, they shall be received and ad- mitted as evidence, when properly authenticated as prescribed by such statute, has no application to any such papers offered by the accused.^* Article VII. Habeas Corpus Proceedings. § 3438. Habeas corpus — ^Indictment — Guilt or innocence. — ^In testing the legality of extradition proceedings by habeas corpus, the court will not inquire into the validity of the indictment upon which such proceedings are based by the state demanding the surrender of a person charged as being a fugitive from justice.^^ The guilt or in- nocence of the person charged as being a fugitive from justice can not be inquired into on habeas corpus proceedings.^* '^ Ex parte Sternaman, 77 Fed. " Pearce v. S., 32 Tex. Cr. 301, 23 595. In re Van Sciever, 42 Neb. 772, S. W. 15; Ex parte Devine, 74 Miss. 60 N. W. 1037, 47 Am. R. 730. 715, 22 So. 3; P. v. Pinkerton, 77 == Bryant v. U. S., 167 U. S. 104, 17 N. Y. 245; In re Voorhees, 32 N. J. S. Ct. 744; Benson v. McMahon, 127 L. 141; S. v. O'Connor, 38 Minn. 243, TJ. S. 457, 8 S. Ct. 1240; In re Ezeta, 36 N. W. 462. Contra, Armstrong v. 62 Fed. 972; In re McPhun, 30 Fed. Van De Vanter, 21 Wash. 682, 59 58; Underbill Cr. Ev., § 496. Pac. 510. See In re Greenough, 31 == Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502, 16 Vt. 279. S. Ct. 689; In re Wadge, 16 Fed. 332, == In re White, 55 Fed. 54, 5 C. C. 21 Blatcbf. 300. A. 29; Ex parte Devine, 74 Miss. 715, "Luis Oteiza y Cortes, In re, 136 22 So. 3; Ex parte Sheldon, 34 Ohio U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031. St. 319. CHAPTEE XCIII. HABEAS COEPDS. Art. I. Origin of Writ, II. Jurisdiction to Issue Writ, . . III. When Habeas Corpus Proper, . IV. When Habeas Corpus Improper, V. Petition for Habeas Corpus, VI. Evidence; Judgment, . . . § 3439 §§ 3440-3443 §§ 3444-3455 §§ 3456-3458 §§ 3459-3460 §§ 3461-3466 Article I. Origin of Writ. § 3439. Common law origin — Amendable. — The writ of habeas corpus is of common law origin;^ and it is a civil proceeding.^* The return to a writ of habeas corpus may, according to the practice both in England and this country, be amended at any time before the finail disposition of the cause, and the return will be liberally construed." Article II. Jurisdiction' to Issue Writ. § 3440. Power of courts to issue writ. — The circuit courts of Illinois and the criminal court of Cook county possess an original common law jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus.^ § 3441. Jurisdiction of state courts. — Where a person is in the cus- tody of an officer of the United States acting under the laws of the United States, or if in custody under the judgment of a federal court, a state court or judge thereof will not be authorized to release such person by habeas corpus.* 'P. V. Bradley, 60 111. 399, citing 2 Institutes 55; 4 Institutes 290; 2 'Hale P. C. 144. 'aS. V. Huegin (Wis.), 85 N. W. 1046. 'Patterson v. S., 49 N. J. L. 326, 7 Am. C. R. 234, 8 Atl. 305; P. v. Cavanaugh, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 658; Hurd Hab. Corp. 262. » P. v. Bradley, 60 111. 401. *Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. (U. S.) 506. But see Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 4 S. Ct. 544. Compare Campbell v. Waite, 88 Fed. 102. (924) § 3442 HABEAS CORPUS, 925 § 3442. Jurisdiction of federal courts. — The federal courts have no jurisdiction to discharge a prisoner held under a state statute upon the ground that such statute is in violation of the constitution of the state. The federal courts will interfere only where the prisoner is held in violation of the United States constitution or laws of con- gress or a treaty of the United States.^ Where a state judge was ar- rested upon an indictment in the United States district court, which alleged that, it being his duty as such judge to select jurors to serve in certain state courts, he, in violation of the act of congress of March 1, 1875, excluded from the jury, solely because of their color and previous condition, certain colored citizens otherwise qualified, it is proper that such judge should be held to answer the indictment, and is not entitled to discharge on habeas corpus, the act of congress be- ing constitutional.* § 3443. Jurisdiction of federal court limited. — It is well settled by a series of decisions that the United States Supreme Court, having no jurisdiction of criminal cases by writ of error or appeal, can not dis- charge on habeas corpus a person imprisoned under the sentence of a circuit or district court in a criminal case, unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no autharity to hold him under the sentence.'^ Where, upon an indictment by the grand jury, a judge of the United States District Court has issued a bench war- rant for the commitment of a judge of a state court, and it is claimed that the federal judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction, the supreme court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may award a writ of habeas corpus, not to review the whole case, but to examine the authority of the court below to act at all.^ Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the supreme court of the United States, said: "We have no general power to review the judgments of the inferior courts of the United States in criminal cases by the use of the writ of habeas corpus or otherwise. Our jurisdiction is limited to the single ques- tion of the power of the court to commit the prisoner for the act of which he has been convicted.'" "In re Brosnahan, 4 McCrary 1, 'Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 4 Am. C, R. 23; Ex parte Le Bur, 49 5 S. Ct. 935, 4 Am. C. R. 283; Ex Cal. 159, 1 Am. C. R. 244; Ableman parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 S. V. Booth 21 How. (U. S.) 523; Mark- Ct. 542; Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. uson V. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, 20 178, 5 S. Ct. 96. S. Ct. 76. ' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, " Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 3 Am. C. R. 547. 3 Am. C. R. 547. " Ex parte Carll, 106 U. S. 521, 1 926 hughes' criminal law. § 3444 Article III. When Habeas Corpus Proper. § 3444. Habeas corpus, remedy on void judgment. — If a person be imprisoned and held on a void sentence and judgment, he will be released by habeas corpus proceedings.^" The accused entered a plea of guilty at the February term, 1890. Judgment upon his plea was stayed and he was allowed his liberty, without recognizance, to again appear for sentence. The next order in the cause was at the July term, 1893, when, on motion of the state's attorney, it was stricken from the docket. At the September term, 1893, on motion of the state's attorney, the ease was reinstated, and the court sen- tenced him to the penitentiary for three years on his plea of guilty, entered at the February term, 1890. Held void, and the accused was discharged on habeas corpus}^ § 3445. Amended judgment, void. — In an Illinois case, the court, on motion of the state's attorney, amended the judgment at a subse- quent term, and the prisoner was sentenced and imprisoned on such amended judgment. The judgment as amended was held to be null and void, the court having lost jurisdiction to amend. The prisoner was discharged on habeas corpus.^' Where the court has imposed a fine and imprisonment, the statute providing for a &ne or imprison- ment, and the fine having been paid, the court can not, even during the same term, modify such judgment to imprisonment, instead of the former sentence. Such judgment so modified is void, the court hav- ing lost jurisdiction after the payment of the fine. The prisoner was discharged on habeas corpus}^ § 3446. Indictment made void by amendment. — Amending the in- dictment by striking out certain words which the court regarded as mere surplusage, even with the consent of the prisoner, rendered the S. Ct. 535, 4 Am. C. R. 253, citing Fed. 200; In re Terrill, 58 Kan. 815, Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 49 Pac. 158; Ex parte Tlce, 32 Or. 163, 2 Green C. R. 105; Ex parte 179, 49 Pac. 1038; Ex parte Clark, Rowland, 104 U. S. 604. 110 Cal. 405, 42 Pac. 905; In re '"P. V. Whitson, 74 111. 23; Ex Crandall, 59 Kan. 671, 54 Pac. 686; parte Clarke, 126 Cal. 235, 58 Pac. In re Boyle (Idaho), 57 Pac. 706, 546, 46 L. R. A. 656; P. v. Stock, 157 45 L. R. A. 832. N. Y. 681, 51 N. B. 1092; In re Reese, "P. v. Allen, 155 111. 62, 39 N. B. 98 Fed. 984. See generally the fol- 568. See "Jurisdiction;" "Sentence." lowing cases: Ex parte Chandler, " P. v. Whitson, 74 111. 20. 114 Ala. 8, 22 So. 285; S. v. Mc- " Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U.S.) Mahon, 69 Minn. 265, 72 N. W. 79, 163, 2 Green C. R. 103. 38 L. R. A. 675; Ex parte Jones, 96 § 3447 • HABEAS CORPUS. 927 indictment void and deprived the court of jurisdiction ; and the pris- oner, having been convicted and sentenced on such void indictment, was discharged on habeas corpus.^* § 3447. Jury unlawfully discharged. — Where the accused demands a trial and a jury is impaneled and sworn, but no trial is had, the de- fendant is entitled to his discharge.^" § 3448. Testing validity of statute by habeas corpus. — The con- stitutionality of a law under which a conviction was had or judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction can not be tested by habeas corpus proceedings in Illinois, unless the case falls within some one of the exceptions of the statute relating to habeas corpus}^ § 3449. Testing validity of ordinance. — The validity of an ordi- nance under which a person has been arrested and imprisoned may be tested by habeas corpus without being compelled to submit to trial in the court issuing the warrant. The accused is not bound in such case to seek relief by writ of error or appeal.^' § 3450. Limit of time for trial — Trial delayed. — "By the common law the jails are cleared twice a year in order to secure the prisoner a speedy trial, and if confined longer than the law contemplates, this would be a denial of a speedy trial." "By one way or other, the gaols are in general cleared and all ofEenders tried, punished or de- livered twice every year — a constitution of singular use and excel- lence."^^ Where a person charged with a crime is willing to proceed at once to trial, no delay on the part of the prosecution is reasonable, except only that which is necessary for the proper prosecution and to secure attendance of witnesses. Further delay would not be allowed without a more specific showing of the causes which prevent the state " Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1, 7 S. 654, 4 S. Ct. 152. Compare Williams Ct. 781, 6 Am. C. R. 122. See Brown v. P., 118 111. 455, 8 N. B. 841. Gon- Jurisdiction 276. tra, Moore v. Wheeler, 109 Ga. 62, "'Kerese v. S., 10 Ga. 95; Ex parte 35 S. E. 116. McGehan, 22 Ohio St. 442. " In re Gribhen, 5 Okl. 379, 47 Pac. " P. V. Jonas, 173 111. 317, 50 N. B. 1074. Compare Ex parte Bizzell, 1051; U. S. V. Ames, 95 Fed. 453; Ex 112 Ala. 210, 21 So. 371. parte Seihold, 100 U. S. 376. See "U. S. v. Pox, 3 Mont. 512, 2 Cr. In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 58 Pac. L. Mag. 329; 4 Bl. Com. 270. 222; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 928 HUGHES* ERI-MINAL l,AW. § 3451 proceeding to trial — including the names of witnesses, facts to be proven by them, etc.^® § 3451. Statutory limit for trial. — A person imprisoned on a crim- inal charge, and not brought to trial within the time specified by stat- ute, should be discharged on habeas corpus, the court having lost jurisdiction.^" Where the prisoner does not apply for a continuance, and in nowise causes the delay, he is entitled to discharge on bail, by habeas corpus, under a statute which provides that he may be so dis- charged at the second term after he. is properly triable. In a case where the court prematurely adjourned before the end of the first term without showing cause for such adjournment, and did not try the pe- titioner, it was held that he was entitled to discharge on bail by habeas corpus.^^ §3452. limit — Three full terms. — The object of the statutory provision appears to be to fix an absolute limit of time within which the prosecution must bring the prisoner to trial, and beyond which there shall be no continuance on account of the absence of evidence for the people, and to fix this limit at three terms of the court; not two terms and a fraction, but three full terms.^^ The term at which the prisoner was committed, or admitted to bail, is not to be counted as the first term.'" § 3453. Defendant delaying trial — Delayed by law. — Where a de- fendant creates the necessity for the delay beyond the statutory limit within which he must be tried, or be discharged, as by moving for and obtaining a separate trial, he is not entitled to his discharge on writ of habeas corpus.^^ The accused is not entitled to discharge by rea- son of any delay made necessary by the law itself.^" "Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.), N. E. 662; Brooks v. P., 88 111. 328. 311. See S. v. Kuhn, 154 Ind. 450, 57 N. ™In re McMicken, 39 Kan. 406, E. 106. 18 Pac. 473. See In re Garvey, 7 ==Ochs v. P., 124 111. 399, 408, 16 Colo. 394-5, 3 Pac. 903; Com. v. N. E. 662; Grady v. P., 125 111. 124, Prophet, 1 Brown (Pa.) 135; Green 16 N. E.-654; Gillespie v. P., 176 111. V. Com., 1 Rob. (Va.) 731; Johnson 241, 52 N. E. 250. V. S., 42 Ohio St. 207. =* P. v. Matson, 129 111. 598, 22 N. ^''Bx parte Croom, 19 Ala. 561. E. 456; Nixon v. S., 2 S. & M. (Miss.) For a digest of cases on habeas cor- 497, 41 Am. D. 601. See Wadley v. pus see note at the foot of the case Com., 97 Va. 803, 35 S. E. 452. of Ex parte Friday, 8 Am. C. R. =»Ex parte S., 76 Ala. 482; Clark S51, 5 Am. C. R. 277. T. Com., 29 Pa. St. 129. '^ Ochs v. P., 124 111. 399, 408, 16 § 3454 HABEAS CORPUS. 929 § 3454. Demand for trial, when essential. — Where the prisoner is on bail he must appear in court in person and make demand for trial to avail himself of the discharge statute.^' Defendants were indicted. at the April term, 1894, and gave bail at the May term ; the June> July, August, September and October terms were held, and at the- November term, 1894, the defendants moved for their discharge-. Held not entitled to discharge, they being on bail.^^ No demand for trial by the defendant is required where he is not admitted to bail.''* The demand for trial may be by words or acts, or both.^^ § 3455. Cause stricken with leave. — At the May term, 1883, on motion of the state's attorney, a case was stricken from the docket with leave to reinstate. At the December term, 1886, the case was reinstated, and on December 23, 1886, the defendant entered a mo- tion to vacate the order of reinstatement, which was overruled. On December 23, 1886, the defendant moved the court for his discharge, which motion was continued to the next term, and at that term the motion was overruled. Held that these proceedings were regular.'* Article IV. When Habeas Corpus Impeoper. § 3456. Judgment merely voidable. — If the judgment upon which a prisoner is held in custody is merely erroneous, and subject to re- versal on writ of error, he will not be discharged upon habeas corpus. But if the court had no power or jurisdiction to render judgment, it is void, and the prisoner should be discharged on habeas corpus.^^ If the court, in the trial of a criminal ease, had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, and the judgment is not void, the only relief is by writ of error.^^ If the judge has jurisdiction, "Gallegher v. P., 88 111. 335; S., 52 La. 4, 26 So. 773; S. v. Gar- Meadowcroft v. P., 163 111. 75, 45 N. llngton, 56 S. C. 413, 34 S. B. 689; E. 303. Garvey's Case, 7 Colo. 384, 3 Pac. " Meadowcrof t v. P., 163 111. 75, 45 903, 4 Am. C. R. 263-4; In re Rolfs, N. E. 303. 30 Kan. 758, 1 Pac. 523, 4 Am. C. R. "'Gallegher v. P., 88 111. 335; Wat- 447; Petition of Semler, 41 Wis. 517, son V. P., 27 111. App. 493. 2 Am. C. R. 247; Ex parte Beeler ""P. V. Frost, 5 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) (Tex. Cr.), 53 S. W. 857; P. v. Dis- 52; Couch v. S., 28 Ga. 64. trict Court, 26 Colo. 380, 58 Pac. 608, ^ Dougherty v. P., 124 111. 557, 568, 46 L. R. A. 855; Pritchett v. Cox, 154 16 N. E. 852. Ind. 108, 56 N. E. 20; Ex part» "P. v. Whitson, 74 111. 20; P. Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 So. 645;, V. Pirfenbrink 96 111. 68, 70; In In re Panton, 55 Neb. 703, 76 N. W. re Lewis (Mich.), 82 N. W. 816; 447; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 17 Lowery v. Howard, 103 Ind. 440, 5 S. Ct. 638. Am. C. R. 275, 3 N. E. 124; In re ''P. v. Allen, 160 III. 400, 43 N. E. hughes' o. li. — 59 930 hughes' criminal law. § 3457 his judgment, in discharging a prisoner, may be erroneous, but it can not be void. If he decides that the process is illegal, he may err, and so may all courts err, but erroneous judgments are not void, but void- able.'* § 3457. Judge de facto only.— The fact that the judge before whom the accused was convicted and sentenced was a judge de facto only, having no valid title to the office, will not authorize the dis- charge of the prisoner by habeas corpus.^*' § 3458. Case not considered by grand jury. — ^A prisoner will not be discharged on habeas corpus after the adjournment of the grand jury unless it affirmatively appears that his case was acted upon by that body and ignored.*' Article V. Petition for Habeas Corpus. § 3459. Facts should be stated — Court proceedings. — A petition for habeas corpus charging unlawful detention should set out the facts constituting the grounds of complaint. It is not sufficient to -allege generally that a warrant or commitment document was "illegally issued without process of law." The illegal detention must appear on the face of the petition.*" Where habeas corpus proceedings are insti- tuted for the release of a person, charging unlawful detention, in vio- lation of his constitutional rights, the petition for the writ should set out the proceedings of the court in which trial and conviction were had.*'' In order to test the validity of a judgment under which a per- son is imprisoned, the petition for habeas corpus should set out or have attached to it the indictment, verdict, judgment and other proceed- 332; In re Smith, 117 111. 63, 7 N. B. "Bx parte Ward, 173 U. S. 452, 683; Miskimmins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 19 S. Ct. 459. 392, 58 Pac. 411; S. v. Matter, 78 =»P. v. Hessing, 28 111. 411. Co«- Minn. 377, 81 N. W. 9; In re Cor- tra. Bennett v. S., 27 Tex. 701. coran (Idaho, 1899), 59 Pac. 18; Ex ^» S. v. Goss, 73 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. parte Gafeord (Nev., 1899), 57 Pac. 1132; Ex parte Blzzell, 112 Ala. 210, 484; In re Bishop, 172 Mass. 35, 51 21 So. 371. See Howard v. U. S., K. E. 191; In re Marshall Udaho, 75 Fed. 986, 34 L. R. A. 509. 1899), 56 Pac. 470; Petition of Sem- "Anderson v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24, ler, 41 Wis. 517. 2 Am. C. R. 247. 19 S. Ct 67. See In re Count De "^ Ex parte Jilz, 64 Mo. 205, 2 Am. Toulouse Lantrec, 102 Fed. 878 C. R. 221; In re Meggett, 105 Wis. (evidence). 291, 81 N. W. 419. § 3460 HABEAS COKPUS. 931 ings of the court which rendered the judgment ; otherwise the petition will be defective.'* § 3460. Evidence in homicide case. — Where a person who has been committed without bail on a charge of murder seeks by habeas corpus to be admitted to bail, the petition for the writ should set out the evi- dence adduced before the examining officer; otherwise the petition is defective and the writ will be denied.'" Article VI. Evidence; Judgment. § 3461. Evidence on habeas corpus. — "What evidence extrinsic of the record may be used upon the hearing of a writ of habeas corpus has always been a doubtful question. We are not aware that any rule upon the subject, of universal application, has been formulated."*" § 3462. Weight of evidence — No evidence. — A court will not in- terfere in a case where a person has been committed by a police magis- trate on extradition proceedings, except where there is no jurisdiction, or no evidence before the magistrate. It is for him to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant commitment.*^ The fact that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a conviction and judgment of imprisonment for a violation of a city ordinance can not be raised by habeas corpus where the proceedings of the court in which convic- tion Was had appear to be otherwise regular.*^ § 3463. Impeaching record. — The record of the court in which the accused was indicted, tried and convicted imports verity and can not be attacked or impeached by parol evidence on habeas corpus proceed- ings.*' § 3464. Judgment on habeas corpus. — "The judgrnent subsisting, but being illegal and void, it is no warrant for holding the defendant ""Craemer v. Washington State, donnell, 11 Blatchf. 79, 2 Green C. 168 U. S. 124, 18 S. Ct. 1; In re R. 178; In re Chamberlin (Kan.), 61 Greenwald, 77 Fed. 590. Pac. 805; S. v. Huegin (Wis.), 85 N. " Ex parte Klepper, 26 111. 532. W. 1046. See "Extradition." "In re Hardigan, 57 Vt. 100, 5 ^'Bx parte Long, 114 Gal. 159, 45 Am. C. R. 272. Pac. 1057. " Queen v. Maurer, 10 Q. B. D. 513, " Whitten v. Spiegel, 67 Conn. 4 Am. C. R. 588; In re Gilmore, 61 551, 35 Atl. 508. Kan. 857, 58 Pac. 961; In re Mac- 932 hughes' criminal law. § 3465 in custody, and it seems clear that no new judgment can be entered in this court or in the court below. The Judgment of the trial court is simply to be reversed and the prisoner discharged."^* Where a prisoner has been discharged on habeas corpus, such discharge is final and conclusive on the same cause.*' § 3465. Judgment, when conclusive and when not. — A decision under one writ of habeas corpus refusing to discharge the prisoner does not bar the issuing of another or any number of successive writs by any court or officer having jurisdiction.*" But a former adjudica- tion on the question of the right to the custody of an infant child, brought upon habeas corpus, may be pleaded as res adjudicata, and is conclusive upon the same state of facts. *^ § 3466. Writ of error not allowed. — Under the common law and the English statutes a writ of error can not be maintained on a judg- ment of a court or the order of a judge on a trial of a habeas corpus.*^ « S. V. Gray, 37 N. J. L. 368, 1 Am. W. 334; Luetzler v. Perry, 18 Ohio C. R. 557; P. v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. C. C. 826. 559; Shepherd v. P., 25 N. Y. 406; " S. v. Bechdel, 37 Minn. 360, 34 Daniels v. Com., 7 Barr (Pa.) 375; N. W. 334, 7 Am. C. R. 228; Mercein Shepherd v. Com., 2 Mete. (Mass.) v. P., 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64; P. v. 419. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182; Green. Judg., «In re Crow, 60 Wis. 349, 19 N. § 324; Church Hab. Corp., § 387. See W. 713; Com. v. McBride, 2 Brewst. McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. (Pa.) 545; Ex parte Jilz, 64 Mo. 205, 270, 58 Pac. 406. 2 Am. C. R. 220, 221. See Cook v. "Hammond v. P., 32 111. 446, 452, Wyatt, 60 Kan. 535, 57 Pac. 130. citing Russell v. Com., 1 Penr. & "P. v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 192; In re Watts (Pa.) 82; Wade v. Judge, 5 Crow, 60 Wis. 349, 19 N. W. 713; Ala. 130; Howe v. S., .9 Mo. 690; Ex Miskimmins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 392, parte Mitchell, 1 La. An. 413; Ex 58 Pac. 411; Ex parte Kaine, 3 parte Perkins, 2 Cal. 424; Bell v. Blatchf. (C. C.) 1; Hammond v. S., 4 Gill (Md.) 301; P. v. Skinner, P., 32 111. 455; S. v. Bechdel, 37 19 111. App. 332. Minn. 360, 7 Am. C. R. 227, 34 N. INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] ABANDONED PROPERTY, owner taking, 811 ABANDONMENT OF "WIFE, intent to abandon, 1069 statute includes charitable in- stitutions in cases of children, 1068 statutory provisions, 1067 Defenses (Abandonment of Wife), See. EvniENCE (Abandonment of Wife), See. Indictment (Abandonment of Wife), See. ABATEMENT, plea in before plea to merits, 2877 Plea in Abatement, See. ABATING NUISANCE, by private person, 1913 ABDUCTION, committed by threats or fraud, "conversation," meaning, detaining against her will, gravamen of the offense, kept mistress, kidnapping charge, joined with, prostitution, , solicitations and inducements, taking away female, taking from parent or guardian, unchastity after. Defenses (Abduction), See. Evidence (Abduction), See. Inbictment (Abduction), See. Kidnapping, See. 230 236 231 229 237 248 235 233 232 234 259 ABETTING CRIME, forgery, 904 gaming. 2216 lottery, 2260 murder, 80 Accessory, See. Accomplice, See. Pbincipal and Accessoet, See. ABILITY TO PAY, false representations as to. 590 ABORTION, death from, dying declarations, 92 manslaughter, 59, 60, 1948 murder, 1916 jurisdiction in, 1947 object of statute, 1915 poisonous or noxious thing, 1918 quick with child, 1917 variance in, 1946 venue in, 1947 "with quick child," 1917 Defenses (Abortion), See. Evidence (Abortion), See. Indictment (Abortion), See. ABSENT WITNESS, evidence of, testimony of. Witnesses, See. 3183 3015, 3016 ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, as disorderly conduct, 1102, 1106 ACCESSORY, detective is not, 1211 to manslaughter, 32 principal, 2477 Abetting Crime, See. Principal and Accessoet, See. (933) 934 INDEX. IBeferences are to Sections.l ACCESSORY AFTER FACT, distinct offense, 2478 ACCESSORY BEFORE FACT, definition, 2473 ACCIDENT, as defense, 2452, 2453 ACCIDENTAL DEATH, as defense in murder. 53 ACCOMPLICE, abduction, al)ortion, detective is not, evidence of, mother not, in abortion, 255 1942 2994 3172, 3173 1919 testimony of, in bribery, 1526 uncorroborated, instruction, 3283 ■weight of his testimony, 2993 witness, 2992 ACCUSED, things taken from, evidence, 3132 weapon taken from, evidence, 3133 Defendant, See. EviDEiircE (Declarations of Ac- cused), See. ACQUITTAL, burglary, effect, 762 cou£ts, acquittal on some, 3338 defective indictment, 2605 effect on charge of perjury, 1614 effect of in disorderly conduct, 1098 principal's, effect on accessory, 2484 subsequent action barred, 422, 2584 wrong county, jeopardy, 2608 Jeopabdy, See. ACTION OF COURT, presumed regular, 3405 ACTS, committed in foreign state, in conspiracy, 1239 conspiracy, limitations barring, 1245 evidence of other acts, 3140 false pretenses by, 587 intent presumed from, 2464 Other Acts, See. ADDITIONAL JURORS, drawing. 2913 ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, when proper to call, 3047 ADDRESS, indictment, postal law viola- tion, 2379 ADJOURNED TERM, power to hold, 2904 Teems of Codet, See. ADJOURNMENT, authority of judge after, 2909 power of court, 2904 receiving verdict after, 3367 ADMISSIONS, defendant's, in libel, 1286 false pretenses, insuffici^nt, 640 relationship in incest, 2085 Declaeations, See. Evidence (Confessions), See. ADMITTED FACTS, affidavit for continuance, 2803, 2804 Facts, See. ADULTERATION OF FOOD, "adulterated drugs" includes whiskey, 1844 coloring vinegar, 1847 common law misdemeanor, 1838 food defined, 1839 having in store unmarked, 1846 inspecting herds, 1848 "milk," what it includes, 1843 police power, 1840 sale by clerk holds principal, 1842 selling at meals, a violation, 1845 statute constitutional, 1841 Defenses (Adulteration of Food), See. Evidence (Adulteration of Food), See. Indictment (Adulteration of Food), See. ADULTERY, accusing one of, 1224 competency of witnesses as to, 2998 consent of woman, not essen- tial, 1951 consent to, not conspiracy, 1213 defaming by charging, 1276 INDEX. 935 ADULTBRY- IReferences are to Sections.'] 'Continued. AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE, defense in abandonment of ■wife. 1070 defined, 1949 fornication, what constitutes, 1952 Incest, 2096 marriage, essential, 1950 variance in, 1977 -wife incompetent witness, 1978 witnesses as to, 3001 Defenses (Adultery), See. Evidence (Adultery), See. Indictment (Adultery), See. ADVERTISING SCHEME, evidence of, false pretenses, 3115 ADVICE OF COUNSEL, defense, 1621 contempt case, 1714 illegal voting, 2320 malfeasance in office, 1552 obstructing highway, 1326 no defense, adultery, 1953 bigamy, 1983 AFFIDAVIT, amendment to, 3385 change of venue, refusal of, 2819 contempt case, 1734 defense by, 1757 how tested in, 1740 jurisdiction, necessary to, 1737 on information, 1739 contradicting record by, 3386 defendant's to impeach verdict, 3361 extradition, sufficiency, 3429 includes "deposition," 1598 jurisdiction where void, 2563 motion to quash, 2757 on "belief and information," 2781 perjury in, 1593, 1612, 1630, 1631 perjury in that not used, 1596 warrant based on, 2630 Contempt (Complaint or Affida- vit), See. Indictment, See. AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTINUANCE, basing perjury on, 1594, 1610, 1632, 1643 counter, 2806 facts taken to be true, 2788 when sufficient, 2809 Continuance, See. Evidence, See. AFFRAY, defined. 1112 includes assault. 1113 Defenses (Affray), See. Evidence (Affray), See. Indictment (Affray), See. AGE, abduction, effect. 238 proof of. 265 confession, how affeoted by, 3105 defendant's, verdict as to. 3375 defense. 2421 disqualifying grand juror. 2681 exempting from jury service , 2964 minor's, best evidence of, 3144 penalty affected by. 3289 rape, effect. 297, 305 belief as to. 302 defense, 310 female's, 290 indictment alleging, 310, 311 proving child's, 349 AGENT, acts of as libel. 1259 attorney as. 509 averring authority of. 2745 compounding offense. 1810 declarations of. 3118 embezzlement by, 507, 509, 510 false pretenses against, 653 false pretenses by. 586 illegal sale of liquor. 1432 liable for keeping disorderly house. 112^ principal liable for acts of. 515 who is. 509 Peincipai and Agent, See AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, what is, AGREEMENT, in conspiracy, AIDING AND ABETTING, as offense, indictment for. 215 1190 904 89 936 INDEX. [References are to Sections.^ AIDING CRIME, Abetting, See. Accomplice, See. Pbincipal and Accomplice, See. ALDERMAN, officer, violating election law, 2304 ALE, as intoxicant, 1375 ALIBI, instructions on, 3245, 3249 Defenses (Alibi), See. ALIEN, not citizen, 2306 ALIMONY, when no contempt in not pay- ing, 1722 ALTERATION, alleging in forgery, 939 forgery, 897, 921 ALTERING BALLOT, evidence of willfulness, 2357 offense, 2348 ALTERING ELECTION PAPERS, offense, 2315 ALTERNATIVE AVERMENT, indictment in, illegal sale of li- quor. In perjury. 1436 1636 ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE, improper, when, 3342 AMENDATORY ACT, repeal of statutes by, 2549 AMENDMENT, affidavit, 3385 bill of exceptions, 3402, 3403 complaint. In bastardy, 2030 habeas corpus, indictment, 3446 judgment, 3445 writ, 3439 indictment, 2761, 3385 AMENDMENT— Continued. informations, subject of, 2776 interrogatories in contempt case, 1758 notice of intention to ask, 3384 record subject to, 3381 verdict, when, 3362 Rbcoeds, See. AMOUNT, variance as to in perjury, 1664 ANIMALS, failure to feed, 823 forbidding destruction of, 2511 killing or wounding, 794 killing wild one, in private park, 1023 larceny, indictment describing, 429 larceny, showing brands on, 473 larceny, variance, 484 manner of wounding, 818 neglecting, 803 over-driving, 812 sex of, variance, 3233 torturing, 796 what included in term, 798 ANNOYANCE, evidence of, in disorderly house, X 1149 ANSWER, effect of, in contempt, 1755, 1756 striking out, for contempt, 1794 Defenses, See. APPEAL, bastardy, when and when not allowed, 2062, 2063 confers jurisdiction, 2561 from justice of the peace, 2910 reasonable doubt on, 2492 APPEARANCE, by attorney in contempt case, 1748 APPLICATION FOR RULE, Contempt, See. APPROVAL OF BAIL, enforcing, 2655 INDEX. 937 ARGUMENT, [References are to Sections.'] ARREST — Continued. Counsel, See. Tkial and Incidents, See. •ARMS, defense in deceased carrying, murder, 42 riglit to keep and bear, 1172 CoNCEAiED "Weapons, See. Weapon, See. ARRAIGNMENT, before jury sworn, 2839 copy of indictment, 2835 defined, 2830 former conviction, 2831 must plead again, 2833 plea essential, 2830 pleading guilty, 2838 presumption as to, 2834 standing mute, 2836 waiver of, 2837 withdrawing plea, discretion, 2832 ARRAY, Jury, See. ARREST, breaking doors, 2653 by "hue and cry," 2652 confessions when under, 3100 conspiracy to make, 1225 contempt, when, 1680 county, in what one, 2658 false imprisonment, 280, 281 illegal n,o defense, 2657 illegal no defense in bribery, 1501 killing ofiBicer in unlawful ar- rest, 2655 killing to prevent escape, 2654 motive In making, 278 person assisting, 2650 private person making, 2651 privilege of vritness from, 3041 resisting, 1562, 1565 search warrant, basis for, 2635 to search and seize, 2636 describing premises. 2637 unreasonable search, 2638 sheriff's posse assisting, 2650 unlawful, effect of, 3419 unlawful, jurisdiction, 2574 unwarranted, 2629 warrant based on affidavit, 2630 warrant not present, 1824 warrant, officer showing, 2656 warrant protects officer, 2634 warrant void, resisting, 2631 where signed in blank, 2632 officer permitting escape, 2633 without warrant, 1578, 2527, 2639, 2642 officer assaulted, 2640 misdemeanor, 2641 in presence of officer defined, 2643 breaches of peace in pres- ence, 2644 prisoner taken before magis- trate, 2645 carrying weapons, 2646 vagrancy, 2647 street-walkers, 2648 on telegram, for extradition, 2649 Warrant, See. ARREST OF JUDGMENT, jeopardy removed by, 2590 motion for new trial operating as, 3309 ARSON, barn, shed, 834 corn crib, 839 definition, 831 degree, verdict, 3356 dwelling, curtilage, out-house, 833 dwelling-house defined, 832 endangering other building, 835 intent, burning another house, 841 intent, burning one's own house, 842 jail, inhabited building, 837 means used, 843 murder at, 2613 proof of insurance company, 879 school house, 836 shop, store, 840 soliciting another to commit, 844 sufficiency of verdict, 894 warehouse, 838 Defenses (Arson), See. Evidence (Arson), See. Indictment (Arson), See. ARTICLES, proof of in robbery, 793 Evidence (Articles and Things), See. ASPORTATION, larceny. 377 938 INDEX. [References are to Sections.l ASSAULT, administering poison, 170 affray includes, 1113 assisting officer not, 196 averment in murder indictment, 72 battery defined, 167 charging aggravated, 215 conviction, bar, not, 2611 defense, in trespass, 1054 defined, 166 evidence, of previous assaults, 3125 exposing infant, 172 felony, assault to commit, 190, 3379 figbting with fists, 175 firing ofC gun, 174 included in mayhem, 368 intent to commit sodomy, 2292 Intent to rape, 318 larceny, assault to commit, 189 officer, arrest without warrant, 2641 officer making, 193, 194 owner recovering property, 199 parents' chastisement, 198 pointing loaded gun, 173 putting in fear, 171 prize fighting, 176 shooting third person, 178 showing previous, in murder, 129 society punishment, 177 spitting in face, 168 teacher's punishment, 197 unlawful beating, 169 variance in, 225-227 verdict in, 228 where rape attempted, 321 with intent to murder, 191, 192 With Intent tp rape. 292, 293, 294 female consenting, rape. Defenses (Assault), See. Evidence (Assault), See. Indictment (Assault), See. Rape, See. ASSAULT AND BATTERY, causing death, manslaughter, conviction not bar to riot, in rape indictment, included in robbery, included in riot, variance. Assault, See. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, general, ASSUMING FACTS, Instructions, error. 306 28 1308 322 769 1298 3200 3394 3250 ATTACHMENT, in contempt. 1749 without rule. 1750 contents of. 1751 motion for not contested, 1752 ATTEMPT, allegation, how. 2750 burglary, what amounts to, 706 incest, intent implied, 2081 intent implied from. 2751 overt act essential. 2420 previous, evidence of. 3124 rape, complaint of party. 334 rape, indictment. 320 varies from committing crime, 3235 ATTENTION, evidence of, in seduction, 2156 ATTORNEY, advice of as defense in perjury, 1621 agent, 509 appearance by in contempt case, 1748 contempt by, 1697 disbarment, power, 2894 striking from roll, 2895 suspending from practice, 289S grounds of, 2897 privileged communications, when not, 2893 refusing to pay money, con- tempt, 1691 swearing falsely, perjury, 1597 when not guilty of contempt, 1719 Counsel, See. Advice of Counsel, See. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, privilege of, 3044 AUTHORITY, to swear, in perjury, 1637 AUTHORITY OF JUDGE, Judge, See. AVERMENT, indictment, to be positive, 2700 implied, in indictment, 2723 ownership, corporation, 2734-2737 Indictment, See. INDEX: 939 [.References are to Sections.'i B 2660 2664 2665 2666 2659 2663 2661 2662 BAIL, bail bond, when void, capital case, where jury disagrees, application for, refusing to approve, sureties, when liable, writ of error pending, in federal court, BAIL BOND, when void. BAILEE, burglary as against, 713 conversion by, 508 conversion by, larceny, 402, 403 embezzlement by, 511 indictment for embezzlement, , 558 larceny in opening package, 401 BAKERS, working on Sunday, BALLOT, altering willfully, description, in indictment, destruction of, altering, evidence, BALLOT-BOX, stuffing, offense. 1358 2357 2346 2347 2348 2352 2316 BANK, proving existence, in forgery, 968 BANK BILL, as note, in forgery, 980 BANK CASHIER, embezzlement by, 543 BANK DEPOSITS, loan, no embezzlement, 533 BANK FUNDS, misapplying, conspiracy, 1214 BANKING, power to regulate, 2512 BAR ROOM open on Sunday, BAR TO PROSECUTION, 1849 conviction is not verdict is, when, Jeopabdt, See. when. 2609 3380 BARBER SHOP, open on Sunday, 1350. 1352 BARN, arson. 834 BARRATRY, defined, indictment for, what is not. 1481 1486 1482 BASE BALL, indictment for playing, Sunday playing, illegal, 1366 1346 BASTARDY, appeal in, 2062, 2063 bond confers jurisdiction, 2061 bond in event of conviction, 2060 civil case, 2011 complaint or information, must be by mother, 2019 complainant to be unmarried, 2020 father of child, 2021 husband absent seven years, 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2059 by divorced woman, by married woman, marriage after delivery, may be oral, defects waived, sufficiency of, contrary to statute, amendments to, imprisonment for debt, jurisdiction, place of child's birth, 2013 mother, non-resident, 2012 preliminary proceedings, effect, 2057 statutory provisions, 2010 trial without plea, 2058 Defense (Bastardy), See. Evidence (Bastardy), See. BATTERY, defined, 167 Assault, See. Assault and Battebt, See. 940 INDEX. BEER, is intoxicant, 1375 BELIEF, conspiracy, 1229 ■defense in bribery, 1504 defense in trespass, 1053, 1059 intent, liow affected by, 2471 perjury, how affected by, 1588 BELIEF AND INFORMATION, affidavit on, 2781 BELIEF IN DEATH, Dying Declaeations, See. [References are to Section8.'\ BILL OF EXCHANGE, subject of forgery. BESTIALITY, defined. Sodomy, See. 2286 BETTING, thing bet immaterial. In indict- ment, 2227 Gaming, See. BETTING ON ELECTION, indictment for, 2237 what is, 2326 Elections, See. BIGAMY, defense to adultery, defined, marriage, by consent, by common law, offense, when complete, statute of limitations, variance In, witnesses, competency. Defenses (Bigamy), See. Evidence (Bigamy), See. Indictment (Bigamy), See. BILL OP EXCEPTIONS, agreement as to, amendment, 3402, certificate showing evidence, common law, essential, when, mandamus to secure, proceedings preserved by, signature to, time for filing, unnecessary, when. 1957 1979 1981 1982 1980 2009 2007 2008 3398 3403 3401 3395 2847 3399 3397 3399 3400 3396 911 BILL OF PARTICULARS, conspiracy, motion for. 1231 2879 BILLIARDS, not gaming. 2220 BIRDS, domestic animals, possession, crime, 798 1029 BLACKMAIL, criminal offense, any included, 1000 defined, 999 threatening letter, collecting debt by, 1002 threats, charging that another makes, 1001 Defenses (Blackmail), See. Indictment (Blackmail), See. BLASPHEMY, "damned," not essential, 2283 defined, 2282 "in presence," essential, 2285 statutory words, indictment, 2284 BOARD AND LODGING, false pretense in receiving, BOAT, as house of 111 fame, not dwelling, BOISTEROUS CONDUCT, defined, BOND, bastardy, effect of, 2060, 2061 bribery, 1493 costs, when secured by, 2403 keeper of dram shop, 1480 Bail, See. 656 2101 701 1081 BOOK ACCOUNT, evidence, in embezzlement, 561 BOOK ENTRIES, evidence, in embezzlement, 560 INDEX. 941 BOOKMAKING. gaming, 2198 indictment for, 2232 BOOKS, contempt, refusal to produce, 1685 defendant producing, 3162 embezzlement, showing condi- tion, 562 pretenses, keeping false ones, false, 620 result of examination, evidence, 3180 BOXING FOR AMUSEMENT, as disorderly conduct, 1094 BRANDS ON ANIMALS, as evidence in larceny, 473 BREACH OF THE PEACE, arrest without warrant, 2644 at voting place, 2351 BREACH OF TRUST, not larceny, 415 BREAKING, essential in burglary, 694, 732 BREAKING DOORS, to make arrest, 2653 BREAKING JAIL, when no offense, 1820 BRIBERY, bond, giving for money, 1493 bribe offered by one or more, 1533 contract in, void, 1492 "decision," what is, 1496 defined, 1488 "executive officer," who is, 1496 juror, 1497, 1498 contempt, 1694 legislator, 1494 negligence of oflBcers, 1499 offense, when complete, 1490, 1491 officer de facto, 1500 persons included under stat- utes, 1495 promise, person bribed violat- ing, 1491 soliciting bribe, 1489 [References are to Sections.'i BRIBERY — Continued. voter, attempting to bribe, 2307 voter, indictment, 2350 witness, to absent himself, 1833 Defenses (Bribery), See. Evidence (Bribery), See. Indictment (Bribery), See. BRIEFS, failure to file in court of re- view, 2889 BUILDINGS, burning other, in arson, 887, 888 defacing or misusing as a crime, 804 endangering, arson, 835, 881 larceny, what is, 384, 718, 719 owner, in indictment for arson, 852, 853 stable as, 862 what term includes, 396 Dwelling, See. BURDEN OF PROOF, abortion, defense. 1931 alibi, 2414 2415 concealed weapons. 1180, 1181 contempt case. 1754 corpus delicti, 3089 defendant, as to stolen goods, IZ'i false pretenses, 639 insanity, 86, 3269 license to practice medicine, 1889 liquor license, 1450 mayhem, 372 murder case, 82, 83, 84 possession of stolen property, ex- plaining, 459 self-defense, 85 instruction, 3268 Sunday violations, 1370 Evidence, See. BURIALS, control and regulation of, 2272-2274 neglect to give decent, 2273 Sepulture Violations, See. BURGLAR'S TOOLS, evidence in robbery, 788 possession of, burglary, 725 use as evidence, 740 BURGLARY, "any other building," 704 attempt, agreement to commit, 706 942 INDEX. [References are to Sections.] BURGLARY— (7oM*iw«ed. CAPITAL CASEB— Continued. 699, attempt to steal by, breaking and entering, "brealting," guise of friendship, corn crib, day and night, definition, descending chimney, dwelling-house, owner absent, boat not, entering least degree, entering window, "felony," petit larceny, force in entering, forcibly entering inner door, jeopardy, larceny case, larceny, joinder, lodgers, inmates only, penalty, servant stealing, store, storehouse, storehouse a dwelling, when, verdict in, warehouse. Defenses (Burglary), See. Evidence (Burglary), See. Indictment (Burglary) , See. Vabiance (Burglary), See. BURGLARY AND LARCENY, general verdict, effect, 3354 BUSINESS, conspiracy to injure, false statement as to, place open on Sunday, 707 694 697 698 693 692 696 703 700 701 698 696 708 695 695 762 466 441 702 761 709 705 703 760 705 BYSTANDERS, sheriff calling on jury, statement of, hearsay. CANDIDATES, election laws, indictment, influencing voters, CANDY BOX SCHEME, as lottery, CAPITAL CASES. application for, bail in, 1200 596 1345 2916 3123 2333 2308 2257 2666 2664 exception to instructions in, where jury disagrees, Manslauohteb, See. MtTEiDEB, See. CAPTION, indictment, CARRIER, larceny in opening package. 2858 2665 2754 401 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAP- ONS, Concealed Weapons, See. CARRYING WEAPONS, arrest without warrant, 2646 Concealed Weapons, See. Weapons, See. CASHIEiR, when not embezzler, 528 CATTLE, includes goats, 795 CAUSE, for challenge to array, 2922 CAUSE FOR CHALLENGE, peremptory challenge, none, 2934 JuBY, See. CERTAINTY, circumstantial evidence, degree of required, plea in abatement. 3210 3213 2771 CERTIFICATE, bill of exceptions, change of venue, extradition, void one, no forgery. 3401 2823, 2824 3431 934 CERTIORARI. effect of. 3412 CHALLENGE, sending for duel. 1153 INDEX. 9,43 [References are to Sections.'] CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, CHARACTER— CowMwMed. JtTBY, See. CHALLENGE OF JUROR, exercising right of, 2930 irregularity as ground for, 2914 practice on, 2984 Jury, See. CHALLENGE TO ARRAY, JtTET, See. CHALLENGE TO POLLS, when proper, 2923 CHAMPERTY, defined, 1484, 1485 CHANGE OF VENUE, certifying the cause, error waived, 2823 transmitting original papers, 2824 civil and criminal cases, prin- ciples, 2826 consent of parties, 2819 contempt case, 1733 counter affidavits improper, 2810 court or county, to which, 2818 discretion as to, 2815, 2816 2825 2816 2827 2817 2813 2814 2829 2811 2828 2821 2820 2812 2822 felony or misdemeanor, matter of right, when, plea before granting, prejudice of inhabitants, prejudice of judge, refusal of affidavits, recognizance after, reputable persons, proof as to, second one, several defendants, trial in county of offense, verification of petition for, withdrawing application for, CHANGING MONEY, larceny, 393 CHANGING PENALTY, on sentence, 3335 CHARACTER, deceased's, in murder, 41, 3159 defendant's, 3152 rebuttal, 3158 in seduction, 2165 presumed good, 3156 showing to be bad, 3155 evidence to prove, 3153 evidence on, continuance, 2808 evidence of, in seduction, 2148, 2149 female's, in seduction, 2124 instructions on, 3282 never questioned, 3153 publication defaming, libel, 1261, 1262 sustaining witness by proof of, 3020 weight as evidence, 3154 CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, abandoning children, 1068 CHARITY, money obtained for, false pre- tenses. 625 CHASTITY, in bastardy, impeaching, in rape, incest, immaterial, presumed, when, 250, 251, reputation, to sustain, seduction, indictment, slight evidence of, CHEATING, conspiracy to engage in, false weights. False Pretenses, See. 2046 2151 337 2071 1284, 2147 2155 2136, 2149 2148, 2149 1221 580 CHECK, false pretenses, belief as to, 603 worthless, 588 obtaining by, 585 forged, possession of several one offense, 2597 forgery of, 988 without stamp, 920 gaming for, 2204 larceny, description, 432 CHECK SLIPS, as evidence, CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, 3187 evidence food. of in adulteration of 1859 94.4 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.] CHILD, abortion, manslaughter, 59, 60 abortion, secreting body of, 1943 competency as witness, 3006 death of, in bastardy, 2014 evidence, in bastardy, 2043, 2044 evidence as to in bigamy, 2006 evidence, in seduction, 2158 father of, in bastardy, 2021 indecent liberties with, 296 kidnapping, parent taking, 269 taking from parent, 275 neglecting, indictment for, 1076 parents imprisoning, 283 place of birth, bastardy, 2013 rape, condition of, 354 rape, proving age of, 349 sodomy, tender years, 2289 Abandonment op Wife, See. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, whether offense to practice. 1873 CHURCHES, prohibiting sale of liquor near, 1417 CIDER, as intoxicant, 1375 CIGARS, hotel selling on Sunday, 1357 CIRCUIT COURT, jurisdiction, 2580 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, caution in acting upon, 3205 classes, 3204 conspiracy, 1232 corpus delicti, proof of by, 3090 election law violation, 2358 gaming, 2243 instructions on, 3285 intent, in arson, 884 knowledge, in lottery, 2269 perjury, 1660 receiving stolen goods, 679 rules as to weight of "each link," 3206 facts must be consistent, 3207 facts consistent with guilt, 3208 facts must exclude other the- ory, 3209 facts leading to certainty, 3210 facts leading to inference, 3211 venue, proof by, 3194 Evidence, See. CITIZEN, alien is not, prejudice of, change of venue, 2305 2817 CITY COURT, grand jury for. 2680 CIVIL CASE, bastardy as, change of venue, extradition. 2011 2826 3422 CIVIL CONTEMPT, appeal allowed. Contempt, See. 1798 CIVIL RIGHTS, federal constitution, fourteenth amendment, violating. 2530 2531 2529 CLAIM, collecting by false pretenses, ef- feqt, 618 CLAIMS OF PARTIES, instructions explaining, CLASS LEGISLATION, invalid, what is not, CLERK, illegally selling liquor, 3251 2504 2505 1391 CLERK OF COURT, administering oath, perjury, 1661 CLERK OR SERVANT, embezzlement by, 511, 513, 514 CLOTHING, as evidence. 3131 CLUB, illegal sale of liquor by, 1394, 1395 COCK-FIGHTING as offense. 796 INDEX. 945 CO-DEFENDANT, impeaching, 3025 wife as witness for, 2999 witness, 2992 Accomplice, See. Defendant, See. COHABITATION, bigamy, 1980 marriage, proving by, 1999 Adulteky, See. COIN, description, indictment for lar- ceny, 431 forgery, evidence, 970 presumption, 969, 972 Monet, See. COLLATERAL ATTACK, on organization of grand jury, 2679 COLLATERAL EVIDENCE, documents as, 3150 COLLECTIONS, fraudulently using mails in [References are to Sections. "[ COMMITTING CRIME, varies from attempt. 2365 making, COLLECTOR, when not embezzler, COLOR, variance as to, COMMERCE, regulating, restricting, peddlers, COMMISSION MERCHANT, embezzlement by, COMMISSIONER, judge of evidence, on extradi- tion, 3436 534 3227 2514 2525 532 COMMITMENT, contempt, defective, effect of escape, fine secured by. Contempt, See. hughes' c. l. — 60 1732 1823 3306 COMMON DESIGN, in conspiracy, 3235 1238. COMMON GAMBLER, evidence to show party to be, 2247' COMMON LAW, adulteration of food, offense, 1838 amendments to informations, 2776 bill of exceptions at, 3396 challenges, for cause at, 2927 peremptory at, 2932 conspiracy, misdemeanor at, 1187 contempt, power to punish, 1670 court fixes punishment at, 3296 definition of piracy, 2410 definition of burglary, 692 escape and rescue, offense at, 1816 habeas corpus, origin, 3439 incest, no offense at, 2073 indictment at, for bribery, 1518 jeopardy at, 2585 marriage at, bigamy, 1982 penalty at, 3307 statute affirming, 1151 statute repeals, when, 2544 tampering with witness, 1832 writ of error at, 3406 COMMON SELLER, of liquors, who is, 1396 COMPENSATION, counsel assigned for defendant, 2891 defense to claim of physician for, 1875 COMPETENCY OP CONFESSIONS, court determines, 3103 testing, Admissions, See. Confessions, See. 3105, 3106 COMPETENCY OF JUROR, ruling on, review, 2982, JuEY, See. 2983. COMPETENCY OP WITNESSES, defendant as, medical expert, Witnesses, See. 3011 3078. 946 INDEX. COMPLAINANT, in bastardy, unmarried [References are to Sections.'] CONCUBINAGE, '2020 distinct from prostitution, COMPLAINT, contempt. 1736 1742 waiving defects, 1741 violation of ordinance. 2779 su^ciency, , , 2780 ■when must be made. 2782 Bastardy, See. Contempt , ( Complaint) See. iNDicTMEifT, See. Informations, See. COMPLAINT BY FEMALE, Evidence (Rape), See. COMPOUNDING OFFENSES, defined, 1805 when compromise allowed, 1806 Defenses ( Compounding Of- fenses), See. Indictment (Compounding Of- fenses), See. COMPROMISE, bastardy, parties making, 2017 showing ofEer, 2052 criminal case, when allowed, 1806 rape case, showing offers, Zil COMPROMISE VERDICT, illegal, 3373 COMPULSORY PROCESS, continuance, essential, 2802 CONCEALED WEAPONS, armed, offense, 1156 concealment, 1157, 1160, 1174 in hand basket, 1157 essential, 1160 offense, what constitutes, 1158 continuing, 1159 statute prohibiting valid, 1161 Defense (Concealed Weapons), See. Evidence (Concealed Weapons), See. Indictment (Concealed Weapons), See. CONCLUSION, Indictment, unnecessary, 1645 ■witness not to give, when, 3082 247 CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, state and federal courts, 2579 CONDUCT OP JURY, drinking intoxicants, 3359 CONFESSIONS, corpus delicti, not sufficient, 3093 evidence, 127 evidence in adultery, 1970 forgery, 977 Evidence (Confessions), See. CONFIDENCE GAME, definition, 661 includes any swindling, 662 indictment for, 663 variance, 664 CONGRESS, adopting state laws. 2697 CONJECTURE, evidence based on, insufficient, 3088 CONSENT, abortion, effect. 1922, 1946 child's, in kidnapping. 270 incest, effect. 2066, 2067 no defense. 2070 proof of. 2086 jurisdiction not conferred by, 2559 larceny, want of, 477 larceny, defense in, 425, 445 rape, effect, 290, 306 want of, essential, 304 instruction on, 359 CONSENT OF PARTIES, change of venue by, 2819 CONSENT OF WOMAN, not essential in adultery, 1951 CONSIDERATION, in fraudulent conveyance, 993 CONSPIRACY, act, to compel, 1201 agreement, sufficiency, 1186, 1190 INDEX. 947 iReferenc'es are to Seolibns.l CONSPIRACY— OojiHwMed. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW— Oow. "citizen," "alien," "inhabitant," "resident," 1205 declarations in, evidence, 3119 defined, 1185 departure from request, effect, 1195 divorce, obtaining by, 1230 each conspirator liable, 1192 extortion, 1197 injuring person, 1198 injuring property or business, 1200 killing, probable result, 1191 merger, 1196 misdemeanor, common law, 1187 new trial must be for all, 1253 number in, 1188 offense, to commit, 1202 obstructing mails, 1206 obstructing public justice, 1204 overt act not essential, 1189 partner defrauding partner, 1203 penalty for attempt, 1254 probable result, 1193, 1194 sale of liquor, 1207 seduction, 1199 venue in, 1252 Defenses (Conspiracy), See. Evidence (Conspiracy), See. Indictment (Conspiracy), See. Vaeiance (Conspiracy), See. 43 126 1936 521 CONSPIRATOR, deceased, in murder, declarations of, statements of, in abortion, CONSTABLE, embezzlement by, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, age in rape, 297 arms, right to bear, 1172 arrest without warrant, 2527 barber shop, statute regulating opening on Sunday, 1352 business regulated, banking, public interest, 2512 restricting sale of tickets, 2513 commerce, killing game, 2514 seizing and destroying goods, 2515 destruction of dogs, 2516 taxing dogs, 2516 ■bribery, 1503 charge, defendant entitled to, 2701, 2702 civil rights, violating, 2529 application of federal con- stitution, 2530 fourteenth amendment, 2531 class legislation Invalid, 2504, 2505 concealed weapons, 1161 contempt, no jury trial, 1721 cruel punishment, 3301 defendant not compelled to tes- tify, 2523 description In false pretenses, 637 destroyiflg gaming devices, 2252 dram shop act, 1429 due process of law, 2517 dying declarations as evidence, 91 exaniinat'lon of jurors, 2988 extradition, 3413 food adulteration, 1841 game and fish, 1013 imprisonment for debt, 2526 parliament, power of, 2495 place of trial, 2528 police power, classes for police regulation, 2500 defined, 2501 speculating on markets, 2502 flag law unconstitutional, 2503 property rights, labor unions, 2509 in general, 2510 destruction of certain ani- mals, 2511 prosecutions in people's name, 2522 public trial, right to, 2518 punishment, maximum term of imprisonment, 2519 fixed by law, not jury, 2520 death penalty, electricity, 2521 receiving deposits by Insolvent banker, 578 restrictions of commerce, cor- porations, persons, 2524 peddlers, 2525 sale of liquor, 1422 greater punishment, second of- fense, 3292 statutes presumed constitution- al, 2496 partly valid, 2497 Sunday laws, 1342 title of act, expressing subject, 2498 embrace one subject, 2499 trial by jury, 2506 violation of ordinances, 2507 trial without jury, 250& Medicine and Dbntistbt, See. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, waiving, 2876 948 INDEX. [.References are to Sections.'] CONSTRUCTION, "county clerk," "clerk of county court," 2541 equitable construction, 2545 foreign statutes, 2543 implied authority to assess fine, 2538 instructions, how construed, 3261 intent must govern, 2533 law of procedure, 2546 "may" and "shall" construed, 2539 question of law, 2532 person includes corporation, 2540 repeal of common law, 2544 rules for construction, title of an act, 2534 general words restricted, 2535 strained construction not per- mitted, 2536 rule applied to statute, 2537 statute with two meanings, 2542 Statutes, See. CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT, defined, 1675 Contempt, See. CONTEMPT, appeal, writ of error, review not allowed, 1796 writs of error, 1797 in civil contempt, appeal al- lowed, 1798 prosecution may appeal, 1799 appeal not allowed, when, 1800 appeal from final order, 1801 action by court of review, 1802 determining jurisdiction, 1803 power to pardon, 1804 application for rule, notice, service of copy, 1743 rule to show cause, service, 1744 notice, no particular form, 1745 notice, when not necessary, 1746 , rule should state facts, 1747 appearance by attorney, 1748 attachment, when not neces- sary, 1749 without rule, 1750 contents of it, 1751 motion for not contested, 1752 process against corporation, 1753 classes of, 1673 committing before judgment, void, 1783 complaint or affidavit, when nec- essary, 1734 alleging facts, 1735 CONTEMPT— Continiied. proceeding without, 1736 necessary to jurisdiction, 1737, 173S on information, 1739 tested by rules, 1740 waiving defects, 1741 testing sufficiency, 1742 criminal and civil, classes de- fined, 1673 civil contempt, object, 1674 direct and constructive, 1675 out of presence of court, 1676 strict construction, 1677 definitions and illustrations, what constitutes, 1678 demand, an element, 1679 arresting, litigants or wit- nesses, 1680 interfering with officer, 1681 interfering with court, 1682 violating injunction, knowl- edge, 1683 disobeying court orders, 1684 refusal to produce books, 1685 enforcing order, 1686 refusing to deliver property, 1687 order to make deed, 1688 void order, 1689 violating order, 1690 attorney refusing to pay, 1691 slandering the judge, 1692 reflecting on judge, 169S bribing juror, 1694 threatening grand jury, 1695 abstracting files, 1696 contempt by attorney, 1697 surety justifying falsely, 1698 witness refusing to answer, 1699 witness disobeying subpena, 1700 keeping witness away, 1701 locking court-room, 1702 ordering a "strike," 1703 entitling the cause, in original or distinct cause, 1727 judge invading one's rights, 1728 notary public unauthorized, 1729 no jury trial, 1730 imprisonment for debt, 1731 commitment is execution, 1732 no change of venue, 1733 master, before, 1764 power of courts to punish, com- mon law origin, 1670 legislature can not abridge, 1671 power of justice courts, 1672 practice and procedure in tak- ing evidence in, 1765 punishment, penalty, extent of, INDEX. 949 [References ar? to 8ections.'\ CONTEMPT— OontiMMed. discretion, 1790 fine may equal damages, 1791 costs, counsel fees included, 1792 discharged on paying costs, 1793 striking out answer unauthor- ized, 1794 several acts, one punishment, 1795 sentence or judgment, commit- ment is execution, 1767 commitment for failure to pay, 1768 commitment, sufficiency, 1769 facts constituting contempt, 1770 contents of commitment, committed until complying, committed until fine paid, commitment held regular, result if order set aside, witness committed until answers, when to he discharged, imprisonment not for debt. he void judgment, indefinite commitment void, without notice, void, on oral order, •excessive punishment, without allowing defense, judgment in alternative, order of commitment void, modifying commitment, judgment void, habeas corpus. Defenses (Contempt), See. EvmENOB (Contempt), See. 1771 1772 1773 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 is 1781 1782 1783a 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 CONTINUANCE, admitted facts in affidavit, 2803 statute on, 2804 affidavit, when sufficient, 2809 application, affidavit must con- tain facts, 2790 facts essential to, 2791 certain averment essential, ap- plication uncertain, 2795 '' facts to be alleged as true, 2796 no other witness than absent one, 2797 procuring witness to be ab- sent, 2798 compulsory process essential, 2802 counter affidavits improper, 2806 counsel abandoning case or ab- sent, 2807 diligence required, in securing attendance, 2792 CONTINUANCE— OOMiiMMed. when not shown, 2793 witness leaving court, 2794 discretion in, 2789 evidence cumulative, 2808 facts of affidavit taken to be true, 2788 non-resident witness, promise to attend, 2805 perjury in affidavit for, 1594, 1610, 1632, 1643 preparation for trial, 2799, 2800 several, when allowed, 2801 CONTINUING OFFENSE, carrying concealed weapons as, false pretenses as, keeping disorderly house as, keeping gaming house, keeping house of ill fame, sale of liquor as, Sunday violations, CONTRACT, forgery. 1159 599 1128 2196 2110 1379 1343 912 public officer wrongfully let- ting, 1544 CONTRADICTION, impeaching witness by, 3067 former statement, 3028 identification, 3029 hostility, 3030 all said, proper, 3031 letter, 3032 grand jury evidence, 3033 evidence before coroner, 3034 how shown, impeachment, 3069 CONTRADICTORY INSTRUC- TIONS, effect of, 3255 CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS, effect of in perjury, 1651 CONVERSATIONS, evidence, in perjury, lewd, house of ill fame, CONVERSION, bailee, embezzlement, larceny, by bailee, use of mails. 1659 2114 508 570 403 2382 950 INDEX. [i^efprences are to Sections.] CONVEYANCES, :^AUDULENT CONYEirANCE^, See. CONVICTION, bar, ■when Is not, 2609 competency as witness, effect on, 2995 fraudulently, procured, jeopardy, 2626, 26,27 impeachment by proof of, 3068 included: oflensej jeopardy, 2599 jurisdiction, without, 2607 several counts, one, 2596 COOLING TIME, in. murder, COPY, proving record. by, COPY OF INDICTMENT, arraignment, waiver, waiver of, CORN CRIB, arson, burglarizing. ». 4 3149 2835 2873 839 698 CORONER, impeachment by evidence be- fore, 3034 CORPORATE NAME, variance as to, 685 CORPORATION, bribing director of, 1522 defenses by., no intent, 2457 embezzlement from unlawful one, 541 de facto, embezzlement from, 572 indictment against, 2738 larceny of property of, 436 allegation as to, 448 "person," 600, 2524, 2540 process against, for contempt, 1753 proving acts of, 3190 proof of, 3189 variance as to in larceny, 487 CORPUS DELICTI, burden of proof as to, 3084 confessions not sufiScient, 3093 evidence of, in arson, 880 CORRESPONDENCE, abortion, evidence, 1932 defendant's, in seduction, 2148 evidence, in aI>duction, 261 evidence, in "bigamy, * 2003 CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, in incest, in seduction, CORROBORATION, accomplice's evidence, COSTS, 2094 216.0, 2161 317S bond secures. 2403 contempt cases, 17912 1793 follow judgment. 3297 writ of error. 3411 COUNCILMAN. bribery ot. 1508 COUNSEL, assigning for defendant. 2890 compensation, ' 2891 continuance for absence, of, 2807 private, to assist state. 2892 refusing opportunity to talk with witaesses. 3392 witnesses examined by. 3055 Advice of Counsel, See. Attobnets, See. Trtat, and Incidents, See. COUNSEL PEES, as costs- in contempt case, 1792, 1793 COUNTER AFFIDAVITS, change of venue, improper on, 2810 continuance, improper, 2806 motion for new trial, 3313 COUNTERFEIT MONEY, using malls to advertise, COUNTERFEl'riNG, jurisdiction, COUNTERFEITS, possession of other, effect, witness to prove. 2364 2579 973 971- INDEX. 951 {References are to Siections.'] COUNTS OP mmCTMENT, COVRT— Continued. contempt of, out of presence, at recess, iriterfering with is, pow6r'to'punisn, ' conviction on one, jeopardy, 2596 election between, rf'V •"■'• -^79. 2784, 2785, 2883 forcible entry and-detalinen 1041' general verdict, where several, 3351 some bad, ■' ' ' 3352 some abandoned, 3353 joinder, in larceny, 442 in kidnapping and abduction, 248 in arson, 865 in forgery, 950 in illegal sale of liquor, 1431 in rape and incest, 2082 in gaming; ■' ' 2239 in postal law violations, 2385 numbering, " ' 2786 sentence on some, acquits on others, 3338 when sentence separate on each ' 'one, 3339 sentence where there are sev- eral, 3336,3337 several, verdict, 3358 COUNTY, arrest, where may be made, 2658 change of venue, to what one, 2818 convictidn in wrong one, jeop- ardy. 2608 defrauding counties, conspir- acy, 1240 indictment alleging, 2739 iiidlctment for larceny, 450 jurisdiction of, 2581 jury to be selected from, 2925 Jurisdiction, See. Venue, See. COUNTY COURT, jurisdiction. 2580 COUNTY SEATS, change, bribing voters. 2312 COURT, action of presumed regular, a'djournment, argument, confining, denial, limiting. 3405 2904 2864 2864 2865 2869 assigning counsel for defend- ant, 2890 change of venue, to what one, 2818 competency of confessions, ques- tion for, 3103 1696, 1678 1709 1682' 1670-1672 controlling cross-examination, 3060 defendant presumed in, ' ' " ' 3404 defined, ' ■ ' - "" 2898 discretion as to new trial, 3316 disihissing after trial com- mences, jeopardy, "''2618 examination of juror by, im- ' proper, 2962 examination of juror controlled by, 2943 improper remarks by, 2859 indicating opinion, error, 2860 intimating dpihibii, iiistfuctions, .■a::\ r; r-..- 324G jurisdiction in embezzlement, 575 jurisdiction in forgery, ' ' ' 990 jurisdiction, where several brtoches,' ' ' 2906 power, habeas corpus, 3440 punishment fixed by, plea of guilty, ' ' 3291 punishment fixed by, when, 3296 writ of error, '• ' 3408 Contempt, See. JtnJGB; See. Jtjbisdiction, See. Justice op the Peace, See. Question of Law, Spe. COURT OF REVIEW, briefs, failure to file in, reversal by, on facts, COURT ROOM, excluding witnesses from, locking, contempt. 2889 3393 3049 1702 COURTSHIP, evidence of, in seduction, 2156 CRAPS, as gaming, 2201 CREDIBILITY OP WITNESSES, jury judge of, 3017 Witness (Impeachment), See. CREDITOR, Debtor and Creditor, See. 952 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'i CRIME, conYictlon, effect on competency of witness, 2995 defined, 2463 Compounding Offenses, See. CRIMINAL, can not rely on estoppel, 537 house resort for, disorderly house, 1124 Accused, See. Defendant, See. CRIMINAL CASES, for certain term, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. Contempt, See. CRIMINAL INTENT, 2903 disclaiming, in contempt, 1704 Time, See. Intent, See. DAY OR NIGHT, CRIMINAL LIFE, alleging, in arson. 869 credibility of witness, how af- burglary. 693 fected by, 3037 variance. 756, 757 CROSS-EXAMINATION OP WIT- NESSES, expert witness, 3076 Witnesses, See. CRUEL PUNISHMENT, forbidden, CRUELTY, in incest, in rape, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, Animals, See. Malicious Mischief, See. CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE, continuance on. 3301 2089 351 2808 CUMULATIVE SENTENCE, "When proper, 3340 CURTILAGE, defined. 833 DAMAGES, fine equal to, in contempt, 1791 showing in contempt case, 1764 DANCING HALL, disorderly house, 1120 DANGER, apparent, self-defense, 2443 justifying homicide, 47, 48 DANGEROUS CHARACTER. deceased's, in murder, 41 DATE, alleging, in indictment, 2730, 2731 changing, forgery, 899 forgery, immaterial variance, 982 immaterial, when, 3197 DEAD BODY, possession, effect of, 2277, 2279 removal, crime, 2275 sale of, 2276 Sepultube Violations, See. DEAD WITNESS, evidence of, 3014, 3073, 3183 DEADLY WEAPON, defined, 184 question of fact as to what is, 188 what are, 185, 217 Concealed Weapons, See. DEAF MUTE, competent witness, defense by, insanity, DEALER IN GAME, who is, liability. 3005 2441 2215 DEATH, abortion' causing, 92 abortion causing, murder, 1916 abortion, manslaughter, 1948 INDEX. 953 [References are to Sections.'i DEATH — Continued. 53 87 2014 17 28-32 2015 accidental, not murder, belief of, dying declarations, 98, 99, 100 burden as to whether wound caused, child, bastardy, forcing person to cause, manslaughter, when, mother, in bastardy, mother, evidence of in bastardy, 2047 murder, place of, 163 murder, time, place and cause of, 75 neglected wound, murder, 15 rioter causing, 56 writ of error, abates, 3410 Manslaughter, See. ■ MuEDEE, See. Sepultuke Violations, See. DEATH PENALTY, electricity, place of execution, scruples as to, challenge juror, staying execution, 2521 3303 f 2928 3304 of DEBT, collecting by false statement, ef- fect, 618 collecting by threatening letter, 1002 fine is not, 3298 forgery, effect of, 922 imprisonment for, 2526 contempt, 1779 Impeisonment fob Debt, See. DEBTOR, public oflBcer is not, 529 DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, when relation exists, 530, 531 DECEASED, evidence of character of, 3159 reputation of, 133 threats of 131, 132, 3169, 3170 variance in name of, 3220 Musdeb, See. DECEPTION, confessions by, 3101 forgery, essential to, 928 seduction committed by, 2122 DECIDED OPINION, disqualifies juror, DECLARATIONS, 2949 adultery. 1969 conspirator's, 126 1234 one's admissible. against all, 998 in abortion. 1936 defendant's. 125 in malicious mischief, 826 forgery, 977 hearsay, when. 3121 incest. 2093 marriage, bigamy, 2000 perjury, 1659 Admissions, See. Confessions, See. Dying Declarations, See. Evidence (Declarations of Ac- cused). See. Evidence (Declarations of rhird Persons), See. DECOY LETTERS, defense, none. 2427 effect of use of, 540 evidence of. 2388 DEDICATION, of highway, what constitutes. 1310 DEED, disobeying order to make, con- tempt, 1688 forgery of, 902, 907 proof, 976 indictment, 953 DE FACTO OFFICER, malfeasance in oflBce by, 1548 DEFAMING JUDGE, when not libel, 1269 DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT, acquittal on, 2605 quashing, 2606 Indictment, See. DEFECTS, waiver of those in indictment, 2766 DEFENDANT, abortion, furnishing means, 1933 absconding before verdict, 3330 954 INDEX. [References are to Sections. 1 DEFENDANT— Con««Med. bas- 2845 1938 absconding during trial, actions of, proof, acts and statements of. in tardy, 2932. E^dmissiops of, in libel, 1286 ddjiitei'y: showing confessions "of, •■ ' ' -^ - ' ' 1,970 aflS'dkvit of, impeaching verdict, 3361 dge of, defense, 2421 Bad. character of , 3155 tiefpre grand jury, motion to ' Wuash, 2759 burdjen of proof, liquor license, 1450 ■ aiibl, ■'-'■ " 2414 calling scoundrel, error, 2862 change of venue where there are several, 2821 charge, right to be apprised of, ■ '• 2701, 2702 codefendant as witness, 2992 compelled to testify, illegal^ 2523 competent as witness, ' 3011 conduct, remarks on, 2870, contempt, unable to pay, 1712 " unable to comply, 171T answer of conclusive, 1755 trial in absence, 1766 conviction by his own fraud, jeopardy, 2626, 2627 qross-exaipination of, 3070, 3071 cruelty 'of , rdurder, ' 144 rape, 351 incest, 2089 counsel for, court assigning, 2890 declarations of, 125, 826 ieclinitfg further struggle, self- defense, '2448 delaying trial, effect, 3453 disposition of, 3157 evidence, where several defend- ants, 3171 compelling to give, 3161-3163 failure to testify, comment on, 3391 fleeing before killing person, 46 forgery, defense that defrauded person ind,ebted to him, 922 good chEiratiter' of, ' 3152 identifying in arson, 891 impeaching, 3022 infamous crime, 3023 codefendant, 3025 on alibi, 2419 instruc^ons as to, 3275-3277 instructions for, 3243 intention, may tell, 2472 joining, in rape, 319 in gaming, 2240 letters of, declarations, 3114 DEFENDANT— Continued. moral character, in seduction, 2165 not testifying, effect of, 327f obscene lalnguage, effect of his opinion,' ' 2177 peremptory challenges, number, 2936, 2937 possession, essential to robbery, 764 possession of money by, in lar- ceny, 462 presence at trial, 2843, 2844; presence when verdict received, 3370 presumed innocent, ' 2942' presumed in court, 3404' principal and accessory, 2485 rebuttal, character of, 3158* reputation of, in incest, 2072' right to disqualified juror, 2963 sentence, presence, ' 3329, 3331 asking before,' 3332 several defendants, 3345 shackled in court, error, 33881 silence of, ai2&-3130,, statements and correspondence, sed,uction, 2143, stateid'ents of, in concealed weapons, ' 118?. statement of taken down, evi- dence, 3120| stolen goods, jointly receiving, 688 threats of, 130, 3168: in arson, 885,886 trial Where two Indictments, 2846" variance in name of, 3220^ verdict as to age of, 3375 verdict where there are sev- eral, 3366 waiving rights, 2872 witness before grand jury, 2689 witness, when error, 3009, 3010 DEFENDING HABITATION, right to, 2451 DEFENDING OTHERS, as defense, DEFENSES, Generally. accident as, when, and when not, age, defendant too young, alihi, burden on defendant, burden does not shift, not to be suspected, when not established, what required, impeaching defendant on. 2450 2452 2453 2421 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 INDEX. &55 IReferences are to. Sections.} DEFENSES— aENERALLY— Cow, another committed, crime, 2422 attempt merely, ' 2420 cjbmpelled to do aa act, 2456, 2458 corporation, no intent, 2457 decoy letters, 2427 defending habitation, 2451 defending others, 2450 detective exposing. criminal, 2427 cfrunkeiiness, no excuse, 2423 competent on specific intent, 2424 rendering one helpless, 2425 as res gestae, ' ' 2426 ignorance of the law, 2429 illegal arrest is not, 2657 insanity, degree of, 2430 after committing offense, 2431 preliminary inquiry, 2432 special, plea, 2433 ■weight of evidence, 24^4 degree, preponderance re-, quired, ' 2435 when preponderance not re- quired, ' 2436 sanity is presumed, 2^37 "rigl*t and wrdn^" test, 2438 nature of quality', 2439 from drink, 2440 deaf, mute, 2441 niere presence, no offense, 2461 mutual combat, 2459 owner conseiiting to offense, 2428 pardon, to second offense, 3294 self-defeuse, wliat constitutes, 2442 danger apparent, 2443 provoking quarrel, 2444 flying from assailant, 2445 retreat, when unnecessary, 2446 previous threats, threat ex- plained, 2447 declining further struggle, 2448 not bound to wait, enemy, 2449 statute of limitations, 2462 statute repealed, 2460 suicide; 2454 taking, one's own, 2455 tampering with witness, 1834 intimidating after suit ended, 1834 witness not suhpenaed, hot ma- terial, 1835 wife compelled by husband, 2458 In Specific Offenses. abandonment of wife, wife's adultery, 1070 divorce pending, 1071 husband attending his fath- er, 1072 without means, 1073 DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— (7ow, abduction, belief as to age, 238 female consenting, 239 enticing for intercourse only, 240, meeting for intercourse only, 241, 242 niarriage as, 243 lewd woma,n, 256 abortion, mother not accom- plice, 1919 drug or powder harmless, 1920 woman consenting, 1921 woman threatening suicide, 1922 merely advising no offense, 1923 sending drug by mail, 1924 necessary to save life, 1931 adulteration of food, article sold not genuine, ' " 1849, mere possession, no offense, 1850 articles made out of state,' 1851 knowledge immaterial, 1852 fancy bread, no defenise, 1853 adultery, advice, no defense, 1953 mere familiarities, 1954 mlerely soliciting, 1954 marryiflg, aftesr diyprcp,, 1955 void divorce, no defense, 1956 proof shqwlng bigamy, 1957 affray, belief of harm, not sufB- cient, 1114 arson, owner burning or procur- ing, 845 tenant burning, 846 prisoner burning prison, 847 stack of straw, 848, husband or wife bUrnlng, 849 jeopardy, splitting offenses, 850 assault, force against force, 179 pistol in hand only, 1,80 pointing unloaded gun, 181 picking up stone, 182 taking hold of person, 183 deadly weapon defined, 1.84 ax, hoe, knife, knuckles, 185 striking with pistpl, 186 exploding gunpowder, 187 deadly weapon, question of. fact, ' 188 mere insulting words, 195 assisting officer, 1'96 teacher inflicting punishment, 197 parents' chastisement, 198 owner recovering property, 199 removing trespasser, 200 self-defense, 201 bastardy, death of child during suit, 2014 death of mother, 2015 twins born, judgment, 2016 956 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Cow. parties may compromise, 2017 settlement not a bar, 2018 bigamy, advice before second marriage, 1983 belief that marriage was void, 1984 second marriage void, 1985 marriage good without cere- mony, 1986 religious belief, polygamous, 1987 void divorce, 1988 first marriage void, 1989 prohibited from second mar- riage, 1990 seven years' absence, 1991 blackmail, truth of accusation, 1003 agent of society, defense, 1004 threat must have influence, 1005 extortion, 1006 guilt of person threatened no defense, 1007 acquiescence of person threat- ened, 1006 bribery, illegal arrest is not, 1501 bribing voters, 1502 statute unconstitutional, 1503 belief no defense, 1504 prosecuting witness giving bribe,, 1506 promissory note as a bribe, void, 1507 bribing councilman, 1508 burglary, intent essential, 710 owner consenting to, 711 compounding offenses, promise to repay, 1807 breaking compounding agree- ment, 1808 that offense had been com- mitted not essential, 1809 agent only, no defense, 1810 giving promissory note, 1811 concealed weapons, weapon in pieces, 1162 carrying on premises, excep- tion, 1163 in own house, 1164 traveler may carry, 1165 carrying weapon openly, 1166 merchant purchasing for de- livery, 1167 self-defense, when, 1168 not in habit of carrying, no defense, 1169 when officer may carry, 1170 innocent motive, no defense, 1171 right to bear arms, 1172 DEFENSES- SPECIFIC— Com. forfeiture of weapon, 1173 conspiracy, defrauding another, 1208 consenting to be robbed, 1209 strikes by workmen, 1210 detective not accessory, 1211 parent procuring child, 1212 consent to commit adultery, 1213 misapplying bank funds, 1214 defrauding by "salting mine," 1215 one pleads guilty, another ac- quitted, 1216 dismissal as to one of two, 1217 officer de facto sufficient, 1218 contempt, disclaiming criminal intent, 1704 witness claiming privilege, 1705, 1706 witness not privileged, 1707 court to judge witness's priv- ilege, 1708 contempt at recess, 1709 attacking proceedings, 1710 purging by denial, 1711 defendant unable to comply, 1712 punishable by indictment, 1713 advice of counsel, 1714 complete disavowal, ignor- ance, 1715 intent, when not material, 1716 defendant unable to comply, 1717 property disposed of before, 1718 attorney claiming property, 1719 stranger to cause, 1720 constitutional rights, trial by judge, 1721 husband unable to pay, 1722 jurisdiction of person, 1723 juror's conduct, 1724 expert witness refusing, 1725 party's rights, though in con- tempt, . 1726 committing without allowing hearing, . 1785 disorderly conduct, disturbing religious meeting, 1091 breaking peace by abating nui- sance, 1092 slanderous words no defense, 1093 boxing for amusement, 1094 disorderly house, preventing disorderly conduct, 1131 license no defense, 1132 owner, when not liable, 1133 kept for lawful purpose, 1134 disorderly conduct in private house, 1135 INDEX. 957 IReferences are to Bections.J DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Con. duelling, 1155 election laws, officer's slight de- parture from duty, 2317 officer's mistake, 2318 minor voting, 2319 advice no defense, 2320 conviction of felony disquali- fies, 2321 knowledge of law presumed, 2322 Intent, drunkenness, 2323 legal election essential, 2324 decision of judges, 2325 betting on election, 2326 embezzlement, false pretense, not embezzlement, 525 owner can not embezzle, 526 fraternal society, not part- ners, 527 cashier taking what is due, 528 officer, not debtor but custo- dian, 529 debtor and creditor, when, 530, 531 by commission merchant, 532 bank deposits, a loan, 533 collector not liable, 534 treasurer depositing jn own name, 535 by public officer, 536 estoppel, does not apply to criminal, 537 general deficiency insufficient, 538 return of property, 539 "decoy" letter, no defense, 540 corporation doing unlawful business, 541 -proceeds of lottery ticket, 542 misappropriating bank's mon- ey, 543 depreciation of assets, 544 embracery, influencing juror, 1538 escape and rescue, breaking jail, 1820 imprisoned by process of fed- eral court, 1821 officer not liable for act of as- sistant, 1822 defective commitment imma- terial, 1823 arrest, warrant not present, 1824 guilt or innocence immate- rial, 1825 false pretenses, intention to re- pay, 602 honest belief, as to check, 603 past or present fact, essen- tial, 604 warranty of title, 605 DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Con. obtaining by promise, 606 falsity as to incumbrance, 607 written warranty no defense, 608 real estate, claiming to own, 609 fraud in giving order, 610- pretenses must be deceptive, 611 no deception if prosecutor knew, 612 relying on own judgment, 613 property obtained before pre- tense, 614 first mortgagee waiving lien, 615 opinion of value, location, 616 opinion, witch doctor, 617 collecting claim by false state- ment, 618 title not passing, 619 keeping false books, 620 title to lot in prospect, 621 pretense must be false, 622 pretense as to renewing note, 623 "parting with" for unlawful purpose, 624 obtaining for charity, 625 forcible entry and detainer, may resist being dispossessed, 1038 better title, 1039 forgery, alteration plain to be seen, 921 defrauded person indebted to defendant, 922 witness certificate, 923 forgery or false pretense, 924 mere possession no offense, 925 mere delivery no offense; 926 intent, possession not suffi- cient, 927 no deception, no offense, 928 passing, when complete, 929 when not uttering, 930 instrument void, 931, 935 instrument not basis of for- gery, • 932 order void, 933 certificate void, 934 document not subject of, 936 trade marks, not forgery, 937 fowling and fishing, fishing with nets, 1024 fishing with hook,. 1025 selling lobsters, 1026 fishing with hook and line, 1027 fishing for turtles, 1028 having possession of birds, 1029 killing rabbits, 1030 fraudulent conveyances, selling land twice, 995 secreting, when not liable, 996 958 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Cow. gaming, billiards not gaming, 2220 playing for drinks, not gam- ing, 2221 servant, when innocent, 2222 prize or premium, 2223 house of ill fame, one woman re- ceiving men, 2104 single act not sufficient, 2105 "profit" immaterial, 2106 incest, female consenting, 2070 chastity immaterial, 2071 defendant's reputation, 2072 not common-law offense, 2073 merely soliciting, 2074 intoxicating liquors, knowledge. Intent material, 1398 purchasing for others, 1399 prosecutions urging viola- tions, permit unauthorized, 1400 giving, treating, 1401 sale, to whom of several, 1402 sale, delivery of part, 1403 ownership not material, 1404 lessor of premises not liable, 1405 one general Indictment bars others, 1406 same evidence proves two of- fenses, 1407 license, good from date, 1408 license not transferable, one place only, 1409 license protects one purchas- ing partner's interest, 1410 license, lawful or unlawful, 1411 strict construction of statute, 1412 kidnapping, parent taking child, 269 child's consent immaterial, 270 persuasion is not inveigling, 271 marrying minor, 272 taking "out of county" essen- tial, 273 person adjudged insane, 274 larceny, when false pretense, 405 taking to secure claim, 406 intent essential, 407 believing to be his own, 408 believing to be worthless, 409 taking by mistake, 410 husband appropriating wife's goods, 411 possession alone insufficient, 412 legal custodian appropriating, 413 joint owner appropriating, 414 breach of trust only, 415 value of property, 416 railroad ticket, 417 owner's unlawful conduct, 418 several owners, one offense, 419 DEFENSES— SPBCIPIO— Com. jeopardy, one offense, 420 two offenses, one occasion, 421 jeopardy, splitting transac- tion, 422 property found, 423 minor stealing, 424 giving consent, is defense, 425 venue, county or state, 426 libel, truth of publication, 1263 slandering unchaste woman, 1264 slandering "innocent wom- an," 1265 can not compel female to be examined, 1266 circulating hearsay, 1267 publication, when not, 1268 defaming judge, when not, 1269 provocation, competent in de- fense, 1270 lottery, where conducted, 2263 horse races, not lottery, 2264 malfeasance in office, taking ad- vice, 1552 mere error of judgment, 1553 term of office expired, 1554 malicious mischief, malice tow- ard owner, 805 tearing down fence, 806 driving horse fast, 807 marksmen shooting pigeons, 808 removing trespasser's prop- erty, 809 realty, trees, growing crops, 810 owner taking abandoned prop- erty, 811 mayhem, intent wanting, 366 injury irflicted suddenly, 367 medicine and dentistry, mid- wives Included, 1871 osteopathy not included, 1872 christian science not includ- ed, 1873 domestic remedies, 1874 no compensation, 1875 statute applying to "manager" only, 1876 sale of drug unauthorized by owner, 1877 paid, board neglecting to Issue license, 1878 clerk failing to record certifi- cate, 1879 manager essential, 1880 practicing under one having license, 1881 murder, murder not manslaugh- ter, 33 provocation great, 34 INDEX. 959 ^References are to Sections.'i DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Com. officer killing, 35, 36 principal convicted of mau- . slaughter, 37 provocation by words only, 38 overt act essential, 39 threats of third person, 40 dangerous character of de- ceased, 41 deceased going armed, 42 deceased a conspirator, 43 evidence in mitigation as to degree, 44 relative strength competent, 45 defendant must flee, 46 danger imminent, 47 danger apparent, 48 defending against several, 49 defending judge, 50 'establishing "satisfactorily," 51 killing not probable conse- quence of act, 52 accidental death, 53 negligence without intent, 54 third person striking, 55 rioter not liable for accidental killing, , 56 evidence of suicide, 57 insanity, mental condition, 58 abortion, 59, 60 obscene literature, obscene lan- guage, no defense, 2175 ^language, when obscene, 2176 ' defendant's opinion imma- terial, 2177 sending through mail, 2178 : procuring obscene picture, 2179 indecent exposure seen by one, 2180 obstructing highways, road never highway, 1320, 1322 disproving user, 1321 stopping train, 1323 .nuisance as benefit, 1324 removing obstruction, 1325 taking advice, no defense, 1326 perjury, swearing in void pro- ceedings, 1611 affidavit immaterial, 1612 in suit not commenced, 1613 acquittal of former charge, 1614 result of former trial imma- terial, 1615 pending case not essential, 1616 oath flot authorized, 1617 oath 'before unauthorized per- son, ,1618, 1619 validity of election of officer immaterial, 1620 DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— Co«. advice from attorney, 1621 defendant may disprove al- leged firm, 1622 matter immaterial, 1623 postal law violations, opening letter after delivery, 2369 sending dunning letter, 2370 issuing money order without collecting, 2371 letter sealed or not imma- terial, 2372 fraud ineffective, no defense, 2373 public nuisance, intent imma-, terial, 1901 greater convenience, no de- . fense, 1902 others contributing, 1903 license or long usage, 1904 direct cause essential, 1905 hides and tallow in city, 1906 rape, previous intercourse, 298 unchastity of female, 299' marriage no defense, 300 woman weak-minded, 301 belief as to age, 302 soliciting no offense, 303 want of consent essential, 304 infant unable, 305 assault, female consenting, 306 receiving stolen goods, dealer in , second-hand goods, 66S thief acquitted immaterial, 669 actual receipt necessary, 670 resisting officer, execution sale, .1561 resisting arrest, 1562 officer showing warrant, 1563 arresting person not guilty, 1564 arrest unlawful, 1565 resisting unreasonable vio- lence, 1566 assaulting officer, 1567 stealing goods from officer, 1568 when not resisting, 1569 taking, when not resistance, 1570 revenue law violations, sale by clerk, principal liable, 2397 proprietary medicines not in- cluded, 2398 destruction by fire is "re- moval," 2399 shipping or removing applies to all, 2400 forfeiture of distilled spirits, 2401 goods, when subject to forfeit- ' ure, 2402 giving bond secures costs, 2403 riqt, terrifying not essential, 1299 one person can not commit, 1300 960 INDEX. [References are to 8ections.2 DEFENSES— SPECIFIC— CoJi. DEFINITIONS- Oontimited. two or more convicted, 1301 compounding offenses. 1805 noise and boisterousness not concealed weapons, 1158 essential, 1302 confidence game. 661 robbery, taken by trick not rob- conspiracy, 1185 bery, 770 corpus delicti. 3089 taking one's own forcibly. 771 court. 2898 obtaining by threats. 772 crime. 2463 wife, when guilty. 773 curtilage. 833 seduction. Intercourse after se- daughter. 2069 duction. 2129 deadly weapon, 184 being a minor no defense, 2130 degree of murder. 19-22 offer to marry, 2131 disorderly conduct. 1081 unchaste character of female ,2132 disorderly house. 1119 female voluntarily submit- disturbing family. 1083 ting. 2133 due process of law. 2517 sepulture violation, possession dwelling-house, 832 merely. 2277 dying declarations. 88 sodomy, defendant too young, 2293 election day. 2299 Sunday violations, barber shops. embezzlement. 492 1352 embracery. 1534 drug stores opening. 1535 escape. 1815 mining operations. 1354 false imprisonment. 279 selling newspapers. 1355 false pretenses. 579 conveying picnickers, 1356 felony. 3288 hotel selling cigars. 1357 food. 1839 bakers, milk dealers. 1358 forgery. 896 feeding farm stock. 1359 fraudulent conveyance. 992 harvesting grain, preserving fugitive from justice. 3414 melons, 1360 gaming. 2193 labor disturbing peace. 1361 gaming house. 2194 religious belief. 1362 house of ill fame. 2098 trespass, entering under belief incest. 2064 of claim. 1053 indictment. 2698 receiving assent. 1054 intoxicating liquors. 1373 entering by permission. 1055 jurisdiction. 2558 removing fence from prem- kidnapping. 266 ises. 1056 larceny. 375 taking from dwelling. 1057 libel. 1255 claim of superior title. 1058 lottery. 2255 mere belief. 1059 maintenance. 1483 driving horse across, 1060 malfeasance in office. 1542 malicious mischief. 794 DEFINITIONS, manslaughter. 27 mayhem. 361 accessory before fact, 2473 murder. 1 affray. 1112 nuisance. 1891 arraignment, 2830 obscene literature. 2167 arson, 831 obstructing highways. 1309 assault. 166 offensive language. 1082 barratry, 1481 perjury. 1582 battery. 167 piracy. 2410 bestiality. 2286 police power. 2501 bigamy, 1979 prostitution, - 235 blackmail. 999 rape. 285 blasphemy, 2282 reasonable doubt. 2488, 3263 bribery. 1488 receiving stolen goods. 665 burglary. 692 res gestae, 3111 champerty. 1484 rescue. 1814 INDEX. 961 [References are DEFINITIONS— CoMfiwued!. resisting officer, riot, robbery, seduction, sepulture violation, sodomy, tampering with witness, treason, trespass, vagrancy, voting, water-course, WoBDS AND Phkases, See. DEFRAUDING, conspiracy to engage in, DEGRADING ACT, libel by charging. 1559 1297 763, 779 2120 2272 2286 1832 2408 1046 1190a 2298 1016 1221 1277 DEGREE, arson. 871 insanity. 2431 murder. 18 robbery, 781 verdict stating, when. 3356 DEGREE OF EVIDENCE, on extradition, DEGREE OF MURDER, evidence in mitigation as to, verdict as to, MuBDEB, See. DEGREE OF PROOF, self-defense in assault. 3435 44 158 222 DELAY, complaint in rape, 330, 332, 335 continuance not asked for, 2798 DELAY OF TRIAU habeas corpus, 3450-3453 DELIBERATION, in murder, DELIVERY, alleging in false pretenses, forgery, no offense, hughes' c. l.— 61 5, 23, 25 631 926 to Sections.'] DEMAND, contempt, element of, 1679 embezzlement, 551 jury trial, 2981 public officer for public funds, 1551 DEMAND FOR TRIAL, habeas corpus, 3454 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, when proper, 2880 DEMURRER TO INDICTMENT, when proper, 2767, 2768, 2881 DENIAL, effect of in contempt case, 1715 purging of contempt by, 1711 DENTISTRY, Medicine and Dentistbt, See. DEPOSITION, as affidavit, perjury, 1598 DEPOSITS IN BANK, evidence of in bribery, 1531 DESCRIPTION IN INDICTMENT, ballots, election law indictment, 2346 bribery, 1516, 1519 burglary, 725, 726, 745 variance, 751 embezzlement, 547, 548, 549 false pretenses, 635, 637 forcible entry and detainer, 1040 forgery, 940 indictment, generally, 2592 indictment, surplusage, 2722 larceny, 427-430 money, 430, 431 variance, 483 lottery ticket, 2266 obscene literature, 2181 obstructing highway, 1327, 1331 variance, 1341 person by initials, 2749 place, in disorderly conduct, 1100 postal law violations, 2383 premises, in disorderly house, 1136 public nuisance, 1908 receiving stolen goods, 674 variance, 684 robbery, 775 search warrant, premises, 2637" 962 INDEX. IReferences are to Seotions.'i DESCRIPTION OF GAME, gaming, evidence of, 2245 DESCRIPTION OF MONEY, variance, larceny, 485, 3228, 3229 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, variance, 3217 DESCRIPTIVE AVERMENTS, variance in, 3226 DESTRUCTION OF BALLOTS, as ofeense, 2347 DETAINER, FOKCIBLE ENTEY AND DETAINER, See. DETECTIVE, accessory, in conspiracy, 1211 accomplice, is not, 2994 evidence of received with cau- tion, 1449, 3174 exposing criminal, no defense, 2427 DETECTIVE ASSOCIATION, juror belonging to, effect, DEVICE, gaming, destroying^ iottery. Gaming, See. DICE, gaming with, 2959 2241 2252 2256 2203 DILIGENCE, in securing attendance of wit- nesses, 2792, 2793 DIRECT CONTEMPT, defined, 1675 DIRECTOR OF BANK, embezzlement by, 524 DIRECTOR OF CORPORATION, toribing, 1522 DISBARMENT OP ATTORNEY, grounds of, power to, striking from roll, suspending from practice, DISCHARGE OF JURY, before verdict. 2897 2894 2895 2896 3376 DISCHARGING JURY. causes for, 2989, 2990 disagreement, 2614 jeopardy, after, 2615 recalling after, 2975 unlawful, habeas corpus, 3447 verdict, void, 2617 DISCOVERY, made through confession, efEect,3109 DISCRETION, change of venue, 2815, 2816 contempt, punishing, 1790 continuance, 2789 court's, as to new trial, 3316 cross-exa,mination, 3060 examination of witnesses with- in, 3053, 3054 separate trial, 2840 withdrawing plea, 2832 DISCRIMINATION, in regulating sale of liquor. 1424 DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT, innuendoes, libel, 1279 DISMISSAL, conspiracy charge, effect, 1217 jury can not agree, 2614 writ of error, when, 3409 DISORDERLY CONDUCT, boisterous conduct, 1081 discharging fire-arms, 1087 disturbing family, 1083 disturbing religious meeting, 1084 Intoxicated in public place, 1089 offensive language, 1082 opium smoking, 1111 ordinance valid, 1090 preventing, defense, disorderly house, 1131 singing school is "school," 1085 INDEX. 963 IReferences are to Sections."] DISORDERLY CONDTJCT— Con. DISTURBING FAMILY, Sunday-school not religious wor- ship, temperance meeting, vagrancy, Tariance, willfulness essential. 1110 1086 1090a 1109 1088 Defenses (Disorderly Conduct), See. Evidence (Disorderly Conduct), See. Indictment (Disorderly Con- duct), See. « DISORDERLY HOUSE, authority to suppress, 1152 continuing offense, 1128 dancing halls, 1120 defined, 1119 gaming house, 1126 house an habitual resort, 1121 house attracting idlers, 1123 house for prostitutioi}, 1122 husband and wife liable, 1130 intoxicating liquor, place where sold, 1127 manager or agent liable, 1129 nuisance, 1893 resort for criminals, 1124 sale of liquor by, 1382 saloons, 1120 tents, boats, halls, 1125 Defenses (Disorderly House), See. Evidence (Disorderly House), See. Indictment (Disorderly House), See. DISPOSITION, showing defendant's, 3157 DISQUALIFIED JUROR, new trials 3319, 3320 DISREGARDING TESTIMONY, instruction as to, 3274 DISTILLED SPIRITS, forfeiture of, 2401 removal of, penalty, 2399, 2400 DISTINCT EMBEZZLEMENTS, proof of, 563 defined. 1083 DISTURBING RELIGIOUS MEET- ING, defined, 1084 DIVORCE, bigamy, marriage after, 1995 bigamy, where void, 1988 conspiracy to obtain, 1230 divorced woman, bastardy, 2023 evidence of, in adultery, 1973 husband and wife, witnesses after, 3000 marrying after, not adultery, 1955 pending, defense in abandon- ment of wife, 1071 void, no defense In adultery, 1956 DOCKET, striking cause from, effect, 2882 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, extradition, 3437 DOCUMENTS, collateral evidence, 3150 describing, in bribery, 1516 description, indictment, 2744 evidence, in forgery, 964 evidence of, best, 3143 extradition, governor confined, 3228 certificate, 3431 forgery, when not subject of, 936 DOGS, battery, encouraging to bite, 168 destruction of, 2516 killing, offense, 799 larceny of, 389 taxing, 2516 DOMESTIC ANIMALS, what are, 798, 816 Animais, See. Criteltt to Animals, See. DOMESTIC REMEDIES, administering, no offense, 1874 DOUBT, constitutionality, effect, 2496 Reasonable Doubt, See. 964 INDEX. ZBeferences are to Sections.'] DRAFT, DUPLICITY IN INDICTMENT— subject of forgery. 911 Continued. assault. 218 DRAM-SHOP, disorderly house. 1138 bond, by keeper, Intoxicating Liquoes, See. 1480 bribery, burglary, election laws. 1524 717 2332 DRUG, embezzlement, 552, 553, 554 escape and rescue. 1829 abortion, harmless. 1920 false pretenses. 634 mailing. 1924 forcible entry and detainer 1044 name of, 1925 forgery, 948 administering. 1926 fraudulent conveyances. 997 adulterating. 1844 gaming, 2233, 2234 license to vend. 1866 illegal sale of liquor, 1437, 1438 sale of, no offense, 1876 , 1877 kidnapping. 276 larceny. 442 DRUG STORES, libel. 1282 open on Sunday, 1353 lottery, malfeasance in office, 2267 1557 DRUGGIST, malicious mischief, mayhem. 819 370 death by negligence of. 76 murder. 78 illegal sale of liquor by. 1393 nuisance by sale of liquors, 2719 obscene literature. 2187 DRUNKARD, public nuisance. 1910 officer arresting. 194 rape, receiving stolen goods. 318 675 DRUNKENNESS, several offenses in one count, 2717 trespass, 1063 confessions when drunk, 3102 two felonies. 2718 excuse, is not. 2423 Insanity caused by, defense, 2440 DUTY, instruction relating to. 3271 omitted or violated, malfeasance intent, affecting, 2423 2424 in office. 1555 ordinance against. 1090 public officer failing to per- proof of. 1453 form. 1547 rendering one helpless. 2425 res gestae. 2426 DWELLING-HOUSE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, arson, 858 860, 861 boat is not. . 701 defined. 2517 burglary, 699, 700 storehouse as. 703 DUELING, defined. 832 defense in. 1155 trespass. 1057 killing as a result, 1154 sending challenge. 1153 DYING DECLARATIONS, belief of death, 9J , 99, 107 DUNNING LETTER, slight hope of recovery, 100 sending through mail. 2370 competency, preliminary evi- dence, 114, 116, 117, 119 DUPLICITY IN INDICTMENT, death from abortion, defined. 92 88 abandonment of wife. 1076 hearsay, are not. 89 abduction. 247 hearsay, when. 113 adultery. 1964 illustrations of, 101 arson. 864 impeaching, 120-123 INDEX. 96S IReferences are to Sections.'] DYING DECLARATIONS— Cora. ELECTION luAWS— Continued. incompetent, when, 106 incompetent matter in, 103 incomplete, when, 105 jury weighing, 118 mental condition, 115 murder, competent for defendant, 90 opinions incompetent, 108 res gestae, restricted to, 97, 111, 112 statute as to constitutional, 91 substance of, 96 two persons killed, effect, 104 uncertainty in, 102 witness, party competent as, 109, 110 words or signs as, 95 written or oral, 93 written statement, improper for jury to take, 124 E ELECTION BETWEEN COUNTS, indictment, 479 abandonment by, 2785 when required, 2784, 2883 Counts of Indictment, See. ELECTION DAY, defined, sale of liquor on. 2299 1385, 1446 ELECTION DOCUMENTS, concealing, 2354 ELECTION JUDGES, ilecision of, defense, 2325 ELECTION LAWS, alderman included, 2304 alien not citizen, 2306 betting on election, gaming, 2207, 2237 what is not, 2326 bribing voter, 2307 candidate influencing voter, 2308 county-seat, gift for changing, 2312 duly held, indictment, 2327 election day defined, 2299 "election" includes municipal elections, 2300 jurisdiction, federal court, 2360 liquor question, 2302 non-resident voting, 2305 officer, refusing vote, 2313 refusing duty, 2314 permitting alteration, 2315 perjury in reference to, 1629 primary elections, 2301 private persons included, 2303 purpose of, indictment, 2328 stuffing ballot box, 2316 voter, candidate influencing, 2308 influencing unlawfully, 2309 attempt to influence, 2310 not influenced, when, 2311 voting defined, 2298 Defenses (Election Laws), See. Evidence (Election Laws), See. Indictment (Election Laws), See. ELECTION OFFICER, indictment against, mistake, no offense, making false return, refusing to do duty, slight departure from duty, willfully violating law, ELECTRICITY, death penalty by, EMBEZZLEMENT, agent's, what "agent" includes, who not agents, casual employment, principal liable, bailee converting, clerk or servant, how determined, constable, criminal intent essential, inferred from insolvency when immaterial, definition, director of bank, fiduciary relation, wanting, exceeding authority, fraud in obtaining order, insolvent banker receiving posits, jurisdiction in, 574, larceny, mail, from postofflce, national bank, jurisdiction, notes, bills, "officer," school treasurer, clerk not officer, officer de facto, pledged property, property received lawfully 2344, 2345 2318 2337 2313-2315 2317 2349 2521 507, 511 510 511, 513 512 515 508, 511 513 514 521 499 500 501 492 524 496 497 498 494 578 576 de- 575, 495, 505 2377 2578 503 518 519 517 506 493 966 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] EMBEZZLEMENT— Continited. ESCAPE AND RESCUE, public oflBcer, assistants included, receipt not sufficient, receiver, state treasurer, 516, 520 523 502 511 522 statutory words, not sufficient, 2706 value, material when, 504 immaterial, when, 577 Evidence (Embezzlement), See. Defense (Embezzlement), See. Indictment (Embezzlement), See. EMBRACERY, attempt, offense, 1537 defined, 1534 jury summoned, effect, 1535 officer treating jury, 1536 Indictment (Embracery), See. EMISSION, in sodomy, ENTRY, in burglary. 22S8 695-698, 732 ENTRY AND DETAINER, Forcible Entey and Detainee, See. ERROR, assignment of, 3394 change of venue, waiver, 2823 comment on defendant's failure to testify, 3391 court indicating opinion, 2860 instruction, reasonable doubt, 2493 suggesting presumption, 3252 material, must be, 3390 peremptory challenges, 2939 presumed injurious, 3387 prisoner shackled in court, 3388 refusing counsel to talk with witnesses, 3392 btriking plea from files, 2886 Instructions, See. ERROR OF JUDGMENT, in malfeasance in office, ESCAPE, killing to prevent, officer may permit, when. 1553 2654 2633 common law offense, 1816 escape defined, 1815 knowledge, essential, 1817 officer negligent, guilty, • 181* rescue defined, 1814 trusted prisoner escaping, 1818 Defenses (Escape and Rescue), See. Indictment (Escape and Rescue), See. ESCAPED PRISONER, fugitive from justice, 3416 not entitled to writ of error, 3407 ESTOPPEL, in criminal case. 537, 3185 ESTRAY, alleging owner of, in larceny, 438 EVIDENCE, Generally. absent witness, 3183 accomplice, uncorroborated, 3172 corroborated, 3173 affirmative and negative, 3086 proving negative proposition, 3087 preponderance, insufficient, 3088 conjecture, 3088 articles and things, clothing, 3131 things taken from prisoner, 3132 weapon taken from accused, 3133 seizing illegally, 3134 defective warrant, 3135 best evidence, record document, 3143 minor's age, 3144 as to telegrams, 3145 bill of exceptions, 3401 books, examination of, 3180 burden of proof, 3084 challenge to array, 2920 character of deceased, 3159 checks, for shipping, 3187 circumstantial evidence, two kinds, 3204 to be acted upon cautiously, 3205 weight of each link, 3206 facts must be consistent, 3207 facts consistent with guilt, 3208 facts must exclude other the- ory, 3209 facts should lead to certainty, 3210 facts leading to inference, 3211 facts tending to prove issue, 3212 degree of certainty, 3213 INBEX. 967 [References are to, Sections.'i EVIDENCE— GENERALLY— Con. EVIDENCE— GENERALLY— Con. competent as to one, but not as to others, 2854 confessions, voluntary, 3094 ■weight of, 3095 by promise, 3096 through hope, 3097 through fear, 3098 by threat, 3099 when under arrest 3100 by deception, 3101 made when drunk, 3102 competency for court, 3103 preliminary proof, 3104 testing competency, 3105, 3106 all that was said, 3107 reduced to writing, 3108 leading to discovery, 3109 corporation, proof of, 3189 proving acts of, 3190 corpus delicti, defined, 3089 proving, 3089 circumstantial evidence, 3090 when connects accused, 3091 cases illustrating, 3092 confessions not suflacient, 3093 cumulative, continuance, 2808 deceased witness, 3014, 3073 declarations of accused, all that was said, 3110 res gestae, 3111 to prove motive, 3112 weight, 3113 letters of defendant, 3114 defendant advertising scheme, 3115 declarations of third persons, 3116 conversation of husband and wife overheard, 3117 agent, 3118 in conspiracy, 3119 defendant's statement taken down, 3120 3085 2880 3152 3153 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3163 3161 3162 3128 deficient, when, demurrer to, when proper, defendant's character, good character of defendant, how to prove, never questioned, weight as evidence, bad character, presumed good, defendant's disposition, how rebutted, defendant compelled to give, exhibiting scar, producing books, defendant's silence. when incompetent, 3129 explained, 3130 detective, caution, 3174 dying declarations, competency, 114 estoppel not applicable to critne,3185 extradition, offense, 3428,_ 3434 weight or degree of, 3435 commissioner, judge of, 3436 documentary evidence, 3437 experiments, 3142 expert testimony, when incom- petent, 3177 medical expert, contradicting,317S fictitious person, 3188 flight, 3126 rebutting, 3127 former conviction, 3146 record essential, 3147 further, discretion in admitting,2884 grand juror's, motion to quash, 2758 habeas corpus, 3461 petition containing, 3460 handwriting, expert, 3184 hearsay, declarations, when are,3121 husband and wife, 3122 bystander's statement, 3123 impeaching, 3182 juror, 2976 by that before grand jury, 3033 indictment without, motion to quash, 2760 indictment on same, second time, 2762 insanity, 3164 weight of, 2434 preponderance, 2435, 2436 medical experts, 3165 common witness competent, 3166 reputed to be insane, 3167 instruction as to disregarding, 3274 instructions, must support, 3247 intention, 3136 jury to weigh, 3202 jury viewing premises, 3203 motive or feeling, 3136 newly discovered, 3322, 3323 opinion evidence, common wit- nesses, t 3175 on intoxication, 3176 other offenses and acts, 3137 to prove intent, 3138 when incompetent, 3139 ■ other acts, 3140 petition in habeas corpus con- taining, 3460 photographic pictures, 31R<> prejudicial and irrelevant, S"3i> 968 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'i EVIDENCE— GENERALLY— Core. EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Po». previous assaults and 111 treat- ment, 3125 previous attempts, 3124 rebuttal, 3191 record evidence, conviction of principal, 2481 foreign records, 3148 proving record by copy, 3149 documents as collateral evi- dence, 3150 ordinance as evidence, 3151 motion to amend, 3383 rejecting, exception, 2853 reversal on, when, 3327 scientific books, incompetent, 3179 several defendants, 3171 statutory rules of, 3083 suicide theory, rebutting, 3192 sustaining witness, 3160 threats by defendant, 3168 uncommunicated by deceased,3169 communicated by deceased, 3170 validity of statute, 2557 variance, when and wh^n not, 3198 grand jury knew, 3199 different assault, 3200 gaming case, 3201 venue, 3193 circumstantial, 3194 railroad offense, 3195 proof not sufficient, 3196 date alleged immaterial, 3197 witness' former testimony, 3181 In Specific Offenses. abandonment of wife, in rebut- tal, 1077 in rebuttal to charges, 1078 witness, wife competent, 1079 wife non-resident, 1080 abduction, chaste life presumed, 250 "chaste life and conversa- tion," 251 previous illicit relations, 252 reputation of house, 253 unchastity, specific acts, 254 accomplice, , 255 lewd women, defense, 256 female unchaste, 257 evidence of unchastity, 258, 259 unchastity of relative, 260 correspondence, 261 corroborating female's testi- mony, 262 sufficiency of, 263 female as witness, • 264 proving age, 265 abortion, necessary to save life, 1931 correspondence between par- ties, 1932 defendant furnishing means, 1933 several attempts, 1934 statement of deceased, 1935 res gestae, 1935 declarations of co-conspira- tor, 1936 woman's statement of physi- cian, 1937 woman's condition, 1938 defendant's action, 1938 hearsay evidence, 1939 result of post-mortem, 1940 privilege of woman, 1941 accomplice, when not, 1942 secreting dead body of child, 1943 concealing birth, 1944 several instruments used, 1945' variance, 1946 adulteration of food, chemical analysis competent, 1859 oleomargarine, color, 1860 possession of impure milk, 1861 jurisdiction, state or federal, 1862 adultery, single or married state presumed, 1965 proving marriage, reputation,1966 proving marriage, record, 1967 marriage contract or certifi- cate competent, 1968 declarations competent, 1969 confession of defendant, 1970 hearsay, woman's statement, 1971 evidence of marriage, suffi- ciency, 1972 evidence of divorce, 1973 unchastity of woman, 1974 other acts, 1975, 1976 variance, 1977 wife incompetent witness, 1978 affray, when sufficient, 1117 arson, proving ownership, 877 insurance policy, secondary evidence, 878 proof of company, 879 evidence of corpus delicti, 880 endangering other building, 881 motive, not Indispensable, 882 motive pecuniary, 883 intent shown by circumstan- tial evidence, 884 threats. 111 feeling, 885 defendant's previous threats, 886 burning other buildings, 887, 888 INDEX. 969 [.References are to Sections.'i EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Cow. incompetent. 889 origin of iire. 890 identifying accused, 891 sufficiency of facts, 892 variance. 893 assault, proving intent, 219 other assaults, 220 extent of injury, 221 self-defense, degree of proof, 222 variance, 223-227 bastardy, preponderance suffi- cient, 2031 acts and statements of defend- ant, 2032 letters by defendant to wom- an, 2033 statements of third party, 2034 preliminary proceedings as, 2035 husband absent several years,2036 intimacy between parties, 2037 intimacy with other men, 2038, 2041, 2042 statement of woman, 2039 other acts of intercourse, 2040 female out late with men, 2042 exhibiting child as, 2043 child's resemblance, 2044 mulatto child born, 2045 chastity of woman, 2046 chastity of defendant, 2046 death of mother, her evidence, 2047 statements by mother at tra- vail, 2048 proving "unmarried," 2049 date of conception, 2050 gestation not usual time, 2051 offer to compromise, 2052 woman, wife of defendant, 2053 mother as a witness, 2054 testimony of mother uncor- roborated, 2055 witness, husband and wife, 2056 bigamy, proof of marriage by cohabitation, 1999 proof of marriage by declara- tions, 2000 witnesses at marriage, 2001 proving wife living, 2002 correspondence as, 2003 proving former marriage, 2004 public records competent, 2005 children born, competent, 2006 variance, when, 2007 blackmail, 1010 EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Cora. bribery, testimony of accom- plice, 1526 indictment competent evi- dence, 1527 identity of briber, 1528 proving bribery, 1529 deficient proof, 1530 deposits in bank, 1531 other offenses, 1532 variance, 1533 burglary, possession of stolen goods, 734 mere possession not sufficient, 735 possession of defendant and wife or others, 736, 737 stolen goods admissible, 738 possession, burden on defend- ant, 739 implements, competent, 740 footprints competent, 741 value of articles immaterial, 742 other offense, 743 proof of intent, 744 value, as description, 745 other goods, competent, 746 identifying goods, 747 testimony incredible, 748 when insufficient, 749 way bills, as to shipping, 750 concealed weapons, burden as to concealment, 1180 burden as to defense, 1181 possession prima facie, 1182 defendant's statements, 1183 weapon as, 1184 conspiracy, generally circum- stantial, 1232 foundation to be laid, 1233 declarations of each, 1234 when conspiracy is over, 1235 act must be probable result, 1236 act of each in escaping, 1237 not in furtherance of com- mon design, 1238 acts committed out of state, 1239 defrauding several counties, 1240 showing overt act, 1241 overt acts, to prove, 1242 general conspiracy, compe- tent, 1243 proving other offenses, 1244 acts barred by limitation, 1245 inflicting injury, 1248 contempt, burden on prosecu- tion, 1754 9.70 INDEX. IBeferences are to Sections.'! EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Con. EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Con. defendant's answer conclu- sive, 1755 when answer may be contra- dicted, 1756 interrogatories or affidavit, 1757 interrogatories, amendable, 1758 court compelling oral an- swers, 1759 husband conveying property, 1760 previous acts of contempt, 1761 executor's agreement with party, 1762 practice and procedure in tak- ing, 1765 disorderly conduct, when suf- ficient, 1107 facts for jury, 1108 vagrancy, 1118 disorderly house, keeper of house, 1144 reputation of house, 1145 reputation of inmates, 1146 language of Inmates, 1147 selling liquor competent, 1148 annoyance essential, 1149 surplus averments, 1150 statute affirming common law, 1151 authority to suppress, 1152 election laws, ballots compe- tent, 2352 poll-book, certificate, 2353 concealing election docu- ments, 2354 how voters voted, 2355 willfulness essential, 2356 altering ballot willfully, 2357 circumstantial, 2358 inducing another to vote, 2359 embezzlement, false book en- tries competent, 560 book account as, 561 condition of books, 662 ; other acts about same time, 563 receipt of other sums, 564 distinct embezzlements, 565 series of acts, one transac- tion, 566 larceny varies from, 567 proof of part sufficient, 569 corporation de facto sufficient, 572 officer de facto sufficient, 573 embracery, 1541 escape and rescue, custody of prisoner, 1831 false pretenses, burden on pros- ecution, 639 admissions alone insufficient, 640 main inducing cause sufficient, 641 confined to facts alleged, 642 induced to part with inferred, 643 intent, knowledge essential, 644 "relied on," proof of, 645 insolvency of firm, 646 other similar pretenses, 647 proving non-existence of place, 648 business relations before date of alleged offense, 649 authority to sign name, 650 in rebuttal, 651 forcible entry and detainer, 1045 forgery, production of document, 964 tools are competent evidence, 965 forged instrument competent, 966 disproving fictitious person, 967 proving existence of bank, 968 coins and money presumed, 969 resemblance of coins, 970 witness to prove counterfeits, 971 intent presumed from forgery, 972 showing knowledge, 972 Intent, possession of other, 973 passing other forged instru- ments, 974 several forgeries one transac- tion, 975 proving intent, deed, 976 declarations, confessions, 977 uttering not evidence of for- gery, 978 evidence of persons who knew defendant's writing, 979 bank bill is note, 980 forging one of several names, 981 fraudulent conveyance, 988 gaming, particular device imma- terial, 2241 instruments used competent, 2242 circumstantial evidence, 2243 showing public place, 2244 description of game, 2245 reputation of frequenters, 2246 common gambler, several acts, 2247 witness, professional players, 2248 variance as to game, 2249 variance as to place, 2250 house of ill fame, keeper of house, 2111 reputation of keeper and wom- en, 2112 INDEX. 971 IReferences are to Bections.J EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Core. EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Core. proving -woman a prostitute, 2113 lewd conduct and conversa- tion, 2114 law as to otlier offenses, 2115 reputation of house immate- rial, 2116 house as nuisance, 2117 reputation of inmates, 2118. terms of lease competent, 2119 incest, proving relationship by reputation and admissions, 2085 proving consent, 2086 other acts of parties, 2087 illicit relations with others, 2088 defendant's cruelty, 2089 daughter of defendant a pros- titute, 2090 family quarrels incompetent, 2091 hearsay, third persons, 2092 female's declarations, 2093 female corroborated, 2094 variance, rape or incest, 2095 adultery or fornication, 2096 wife competent witness, 2097 IMoxicating liquors, proceed- ings to forfeit liquor license, 1426 illegal sale of liquor, 1407 statutory rule of evidence, 1447 several offenses from one act, 1448 detective evidence, 1449 license, burden on defendant, 1450 consent of parent, 1451 proof of habit, 1452 proof of drunkenness, 1453 proving intoxicating qualities, 1454 expert, as to "bitters," 1455 owner of premises, 1456 keeping place, persons intoxi- cated, 1457 drinking on premises, 1458 carrying on business, single act, 1459 as to nuisance, 1460 other sales by wife, 1461 other violations competent, 1462 sales to other minors, 1463 United States license, 1464 showing contents of kegs by revenue stamps, 1465 rebuttal evidence, 1466 sales, when made, 1468 variance, 1469-1476 kidnapping, motive in making arrest, 278 larceny, possession, evidence of guilt, 451 possession is presumption of fact, 452 "satisfactory" explanation of possession, 453 possession long after larceny, 454 possession, not exclusive, 455 possession of part, 456 explaining possession, 457, 458 burden as to explaining pos- session, 459 recent possession, 460 other stolen property, 461 similar coins found on defend- ant, • 462 independent larceny incompe- tent, 463, 467, 470 same artifice on others, 464 other offenses, 465 burglary and larceny, same act, 466 other acts incompetent, 468 other articles, competent, 469 defendant seen with money, 471 defendant's statement as to stealing, 472 marks and labels, 473 brands on animals, 473 intent may be inferred, 474 evidence of value, 475 market value, 47(5 proof as to want of consent, 477 ownership, owner as witness, 478 variance in, 480 et seq. libel, weight of evidence, 1283 chastity not presumed, 1284 defendant presumed innocent, 1284 proving publication, one copy, 1285 admissions of defendant, 1286 witness testifying to slander- ous words, 1287 impeaching witness, 1288 other publications competent, 1289 defense, disproving malice, 1290 all said is competent, 1291 trial by society incompetent, 1292 identical words essential, 1293 no variance, 1294 publishing in presence of sev- eral, 1295 proving other slanderous words, 1296 972 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Ooji. EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Cow. lottery, other documents, 2268 knowledge, shown by circum- stances, 2269 aiding is setting up lottery, 2270 variance as to name, 2271 malicious mischief, other like acts, 825 defendant's declarations, 826 mitigation, 827 variance, 828-830 mayhem, burden on prosecution, 372 intent inferred, 373 previous threats, 374 medicine and dentistry, prima facie evidence, 1888 proof as to no license, 1889 acting as physician or sur- geon, 1890 murder, mitigation as to degree, 44 relative strength, 45 suicide, 57 tilling proved, burden, 82, 84 statute on killing being proved, 83 burden as to self-defense, 85 burden as to insanity, 86 burden as to wound, 87 dying declarations, 88, 89 dying statements, 90, 91, 96, 97 death from abortion, 92 written and oral statements, 93, 94 words or signs, 95 dying statements, belief of death, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 incompetent matter in dying statement, 103 statement of deceased where two killed, 104 dying statement incomplete, 105, 106 opinion as to belief of death, 107 opinions incompetent, 108 declarations of incompetent witnesses, 110 statement of deceased, res ges- tae, 111 statements not res gestae, 112 statements as hearsay, 113 preliminary evidence on com- petency, 114 determining mental condition, 115 testing competency of dying statements, 116, 117, 119 jury weighing dying state- ments, 118 impeaching dying statements, 120, 121, 122, 123 jury taking written statement, 124 declarations of defendant, 125 declarations of conspirator, 126 confessions, 127 statements at Inquest, 128 previous assault, 129 threats of defendant, 130 threats of deceased, 131, 132 reputation of deceased, 133 where several killed, 134 friendship between persons, 135 malice implied from weapon used, 136 when malice not implied, 137 evidence of motive, 138, 140, 141 previous relations, quarrels, 139, 142 defendant's cruelty, 143 hostile feelings, 144 preparation for flight, 145 post-mortem examination, 146 opinion of police, 147 what witness thought, 148 evidence of other poisonings, 149 other offense, 150 other felony, 151 eye witnesses to be called, 152 non-expert, about blood, 153 official character of deceased, 154 variance, 155, 156, 157 obscene literature, other acts in- competent, 2189 document containing, 2190 variance, 2191, 2192 obstructing highways, proof of long use, 1335 proof of highway, 1336 proving highway by records, 1337 other obstruction of same road, 1338 obstruction in or near town, 1339 two distinct offenses, 1340 perjury, two witnesses not es- sential, 1650 two contradictory statements, 1651 material and immaterial aver- ments, 1652 files competent, 1653 record and proceedings, 1653 stenographer's notes. 1654 jurat of officer, 1655 other violations incompetent, 1656 hearsay incompetent, 1657 judge's remarks, hearsay, 1658 conversations, declarations, 1659 INDEX. 973 [References are to Sections.1 EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Core. EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Cow. circumstantial evidence sufiB- cient, 1660 variance, 1661-1666 postal law violations, decoy let- ters, 2388 sending indecent letters, 2389 way bills, 2390 name, real or fictitious, 2391 rape, female's complaint, 324, 325, 326 pain of female, 327 acts of female, 328 mother's examination, 329 delay in complaining, 330 complaint, when incompetent, 331 where complaint remote, 332 no complaint or outcry, 333 complaint of attempt, 334 excuse for delay in complain- ing, 335 resistance essential, 336 impeaching chastity, 337 former unchastity incompe- tent, 338 previous acts, 339 other voluntary acts, 340 acts with other men, 341 impeaching prosecutrix, 342 female's exclamations compe- tent, 343 female's condition, lame, 3,44 venereal disease, 345 other acts of rape, 346 settlement offered, 347 leading questions, 348 proof of child's age, 349 age material, 350 cruelty of defendant, 351 result of examination compe- tent, 352 physician's examination, 353 child's condition, cause, 354 no pain, or bleeding, 355 prosecutrix's evidence suffi- cient, 356 variance, different offense, 357 fraud varies from force, 358 receiving stolen goods, recent possession, 676 knowledge essential, 677 proof of larceny essential, 678 circumstantial, 679 search for other goods, 680 other stolen goods, 681 recording description, 682 proving ownership, resem- blance, 683 variance, 684, 685 resisting officer, proving person to be an officer, 1580 officer de facto sufficient, 1581 riot, members of society, 1307 bar to prosecution, 1308 robbery, undisputed possession is prima facie ownership, 783 taken with force, 784 intent inferred, 785 value immaterial, 786 other property taken, 787 tools for burglary, competent, 788 articles, when incompetent, 789 variance, 790, 791, 792 proof of one of several, 793 seduction, indictment for, 2139 future promise of marriage, 2140 promise implied from lan- guage, 2141 intercourse before promise, 2142 defendant's statements and correspondence, 2143 female's statements to others, 2144 specific acts of unchastity, 2145 reputation for chastity, 2146 when chastity presumed and when not, 2147 chaste'character, 2148, 2149 mere improprieties not suffi- cient, 2150 impeaching chastity, 2151 lascivious conduct, 2151 impeaching chastity by repu- tation of house, 2152 impeaching prosecutrix, 2153 questions Indefinite, 2154 sustaining chastity by reputa- tion, 2155 courtship or attention compe- tent, 2156 previous familiarities, 2157 child as evidence, 2158 other acts between parties, 2159 corroborating female, 2160, 2161 promise of marriage relied on, 2162 willingness to marry, 2163 preparation to marry incom- petent, 2164 defendant's moral character, 2185 when rape, 2166 sodomy, 2297 974 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.'] EVIDENCE— SPECIFIC— Com. EXECUTION, Sunday violations, tippling house, evidence of any Sun- day, 1369 burden of, 1370 other sales, 1371 tampering with witness, per- suading witness, 1836 no variance, 1837 trespass, 1065 Declaeations, See. Defenses, See. Dying Declarations, See. Pkesumption, See. EXAMINATION IN RAPE, evidence of. 329, 352, 353 EXAMINATION OF JURORS, competency, 2958, 2961 counsel conducting, 2940 court controls, 2943 court's, improper, 2962 presuming defendant innocent, 2942 proper question, 2941 statute constitutional, 2988 JuBT, See. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, rape case, 348 Witnesses, See. EXCEPTIONS, Indictment, See. Trial and Incidents, See. EXCEPTIONS IN STATUTE, negativing, 1034, 2727 abortion, 1930 adulteration of food, 1858 bigamy, 1994 concealed weapons, 1177 illegal sale of liquor, 1439 Sunday violations, 1364 EXCEPTIONS TO RULING, improper argument. 2868 EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT, in contempt, 1784 EXCURSIONS, on Sunday, 1351 breaking door to levy, trespass, 1052 contempt case, 1732 commitment as, 1767 place of, 3303 "quick with child," 3304 stay in murder case, 164 resisting officer levying, 1561 EXECUTOR, evidence against in contempt case. 1762 EXEMPTION, jury service, age, 2964 EXHIBIT, foreign language. 2752 improper, when. 2787 EXPERIMENTS. evidence ot 3141 jury making. 3142 EXPERT EVIDENCE in liquor case, 1555 when incompetent. 3177 Evidence, See. EXPERT WITNESS, fees of. 3051 gaming. 2248 insanity, 3166 handwriting. 3184 opinions by. 3039, 3040 refusing to answer, contempt, 1725 Opinions, See. Witnesses, See. EXPLANATION, witness may make, 3063 EX POST FACTO, when statute is not, • 3302 EXPOSURE, witness privileged from, 3042 EXPRESSED OPINION, disqualified juror, 2944 EXTENT OF INJURY, in cruelty to animals, 814 INDEX. 975 EXTORTION, conspiracy for, 1197 malfeasance in office, 1543 EXTRADITION, arrest for on telegram, 2649 constitutional provisions, mis- demeanors included, 3413 evidence of extraditable of- fense, 3434 weight or degree of, 3435 commissioner. Judge of, 3436 documentary, 3437 fugitive from justice, defined, 3414 visiting another state and committing offense, 3415 escaped prisoner, 3416 when not, 3417 governor determining validity, when governor may act, 3426 deciding as to fugitive, 3427 proof as to fugitive, 3428 proof confined to documents, 3428 indictment or aflBdavit, sufB- ciency, 3429 offense committed in demand- . ing state, 3430 documents certified as authen- tic, 3431 habeas corpus, 3438 international, trial on specific offense named, 3418 unlawful arrest immaterial, 3419 privilege extends to included offense, 3420 offense not mentioned in treaty, 3421 privilege extends to civil cases, 3422 "forgery" used in treaty, 3423 misdemeanor, 3413 privilege of returning, not ex- tended, 3424 when extended, 3425 warrant, 3432, 3433 IBeferences are to 8ections.'\ FACTS, EXTRINSIC FACTS, averment of in indictment, EYE-WITNESSES, calling all. P FACTORY, as nuisance. 2703 3048 1892 affidavit for continuance, 2790, 2791, 2803, 2804 arson, 892 conspiracy, 1220 contempt, 1735 rule stating, 1747 commitment, 1770 continuance, application, 2796 damaging, instructions recit- ing, 3253 disorderly conduct, 1108 evidence confined to those al- leged, 642 existing and non-existing, vari- ance, 657 extrinsic, averring in indict- ment, 2703 false pretenses, past or pres- ent, 604 jury judge, 660 forcible entry and detainer, 1042 forgery, 944 instructions assuming, error, 3250 instruction singling out, 3254 jurisdiction, 2582 juror hearing, competency, 2957 jury judges of, 2987 libel, 1257 malfeasance in office, 1556 perjury, 1626 negativing, 1640 petition for habeas corpus, 3459 public nuisance, 1907 reasonable doubt applicable to, 2491 reversal on by court of review, 3393 special verdict, essential to, 3348 FALSE BOOK ENTRIES, evidence, in embezzlement, 560 FALSE BOOKS, whether keeping is false pre- tense, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, 620 arrest without cause, unlawful, defined, indictment for, parents imprisoning child, threats. 279 281 279 284 283 282 FALSE PRETENSES, • acts or words, advertising scheme, evidence, 587 3115 976 INDEX. [References are to Sections.} FALSE PRETENSES — Continued. agent for another, 586 attempt, 601 charge for receiving stolen goods, 672 cheating by false weights, 580 concealing defects or quality, 593 continuing offense, 599 corporation, a "person," 600 definition, 579 embezzlement compared to, 525 false statement as to business, 596 fictitious letter, 589 forgery distinguished from, 924 inducing to pay too much, 598 intent, 583 jurisdiction, 659 larceny distinguished from, 405, 480 mortgaging property, 594 personating officer, 595 pretending to procure position, 597 pretending to represent another, 591 property, actually obtaining, 582 publication in newspaper, 592 statement of one's ability to pay, 590 title, parting with, 581 value, 585 worthless bill or check, 588 Confidence Game, See. Defenses (False Pretenses), See. Evidence (False Pretenses), See. Indictment (False Pretenses), See. Vabiance (False Pretenses), See. FALSE REGISTRATION, election law violation, 2338, 2340 FALSE RETURN, election officer making, FALSE WEIGHTS, cheating by, FALSITY, knowledge of, in perjury, stating, in perjury, FAMILIARITIES, adultery, evidence of, in seduction, FAMILY QUARRELS, evidence of, in incest, 2337 580 1583 1641 1954 2157 2091 FARM PRODUCTS, ownership, FARO, gaming, indictment. 38S 2212 2231 FEAR, assault, putting in fear as, 171 confession through, 3098 rape through, 288 FEDERAL COURT, imprisoned by process of, es- cape, jurisdiction, 2575- embezzlement, perjury, election law violation, Tiofteos corpus, 3442, writ of error, bail pending. 1821 2579 574 1669 2360 3443 2662 FEDERAL STATUTES, postal law violations, 2362 revenue law violations, 2392 FEEDING FARM STOCK, on Sunday, 1359 FEELING, evidence of, 313S FEES, expert witness, 3051 witnesses', 3050 FELONIOUS INTENT, indictment for assault, 203 FELONIOUSLY, . in incest, 2079 FELONY, assault to commit, 190 verdict, 3379 burglary, 731 change of venue in case of, 2825 conviction, right to vote, 2321 defined, 3288 distinct, can not be joined, 2711 evidence of other ones, 151 joinder, duplicity, 2718 petit larceny as, 708 private person arresting for, 2651 Misdemeanob, See. INDEX. ■977 IReferences are to Sections.'] / FELONY CASE, judge can not try, 2902 FEMALE, abduction, cojisent, 239 unchaste, 257 evidence of, 262 chastity presumed, 250 examination, none in libel, 1266 rape, age, 311 complaint by, 324-332 exclamations by, 343 condition, 344 seduction, unmarried, 2123 character, 2124 confided to one's care, 2128 unchastity, 2132 submitting, 2133 corroborating, 2160, 2161 Abduction, See. Rape, See. FENCES, destroying, trespass, 1047 removing, trespass, 1056 tearing down, an offense, 806 FERRY BOAT, public place, gaming, FICTITIOUS LETTER, false pretenses by, FICTITIOUS NAME, signing, forgery, FICTITIOUS PERSON, disproving, in forgery, evidence of, FIDUCIARY CHARACTER, essential in embezzlement. 2210 589 901 967 3188 545 FIDUCIARY RELATION, effect on embezzlement, 496, 497 FIGHTING, as assault, FILES OF COURT, concealing, contempt, hughes' c. l. — 62 175 1696 FINAL ORDER, appeal from in contempt case, 1801, FINE, equaling damages, in contempt, 1791 extent of, 3291 implied authority to assess, 2538 not debt, 3298 securing order of commitment, 3306 FIRE, proving origin of, in arson, 890 unlawful setting, 821 FIRE ARMS, discharging as an offense, 7,087 Concealed Weapons, See. FIRST DEGREE, murder, sufficient indictment, 23, 67, 68 Deqbees, See. FISH, are wild, 1014 PISHING, Fowling and Fishing, See. FIXED OPINION, juror disqualified by, 2952 FLAG, legislation concerning, :250S FLIGHT, evidence of, 3126 showing preparation for, mur- der, 145 FLYING FROM ASSAILANT, self-defense, 2445 FOOD, defined, 183» killing person lor, murder, 14 Adultbkation of Food, See. FOOTPRINTS, evidence, in burglary, 741 978 INDEX. ZReferences are to Sections.'] FORCE, assault, repelling, 179 burglary by, variance, 752 forcible entry and detainer, 1037, 1042 fraud, 358 kidnapping, 267 "putting in fear" is not, 792 rape, 307, 308 robbery, 770, 774, 784 trespass, 1050 FORCIBLE ENTRY, in burglary. 695, 696 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAIN- ER, common law offense, 1035 "force" essential, 1037 premises in possession essential, 1036 J)efenses (Forcible Entry and De- tainer), See. Indictment (Forcible Entry and Detainer), See. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, embezzlement from, 571 FOREIGN LANGUAGE, forging instrument in, how alleged in indictment, FOREIGN RECORDS, evidence of. 942 2752 3148 FOREIGN STATE, acts committed in, in conspir- acy, 1239 FOREIGN STATUTES, construction, 2543 FOREMAN, grand jury, appointment, 2682 FORFEITURE, concealed weapon, 1173 license to sell liquor, 1426 revenue law violations, 2401, 2402 FORGED CHECKS, possession of several, one of- fense, 2597 FORGED INSTRUMENT, evidence, in forgery, FORGERY, crime complete, when, extradition, generally, defined, alteration is, nature of, changing date. Indorsing same name, fictitious name, forgery of deed, public documents, aiding and abetting, procuring another. 966 915 3423 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 uttering is offering, 906, 908 uttering deed, 907 instrument effective, 909 instrument, order, 910 draft, check, bill of exchange, order, 911 contract, not note or bill, 912 warehouse receipts, not notes, 913 crucible is not tool, 914 intent, possession of other coun- terfeits, 973 jeopardy, 991 jurisdiction, 990 persons defrauded, 915, 916 intent, knowledge essential, 917 instrument suflScient, 918 character of instrument im- material, 919 check not stamped, 920 venue, 989 Defenses (In Forgery), See. Evidence (In Forgery), See. Indictment (Forgery), See. Variance (Forgery), See. FORM OF OATH, competency of witness, juror, 3004 2966 FORM OF VERDICT, verbal errors, Vekdict, See. 3349 FORMER ACQUITTAL, practice on plea of. 288S FORMER ADJUDICATION, verdict as bar, 3380 INDEX. 979 [References are to Sections.] FORMER CONVICTION, arraigament, effect of, 2831 evidence of, 3146, 3147 FORNICATION, defined, 1952 Incest, 2096 Adultery, See. Incest, See. FOUNDATION, for evidence, in conspiracy, 1233 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, civil rights, 2531 FOWLING AND FISHING, animals in one's park, carrying to market, game defined, game, property of public, game shipped into state, fish are wild, fishing with net, jeopardy, knowledge essential, police power, statutes constitutional, water-course defined, obstructing, waters, public or private. Defenses (In Fowling and ing), See. Indictment (Fowling and ing). See. FOWLS, cruelty to, FRATERNAL SOCIETY, embezzling from, FRAUD, abduction committed by, 230 burglary by, variance, 753 conspiracy, 1208 conspiracy to defraud county, 1240 conviction procured by, jeopardy, 2626, 2627 embezzlement, 494 false pretenses, 610 forgery, 915, 916 jurisdiction obtained by, void, 2562 larceny, when not, 405 mails used for, offense, 2363 1023 1019 1011 1012 1021 1014 1018 1020 1022 1013 1013 1016 1017 1015 Fish- Fish- 822 527 FRAVB— Continued. partner defrauding partner, 1203 possession by, larceny, 392 postal law violation, 2373 rape through, 288 varies from force, 358 "salting" mine, 1216 voter voting twice, 2342 False Pretenses, See. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, conveying through another, 994 declarations of one against all, 998 definition. 992 duplicity, 997 selling land twice. 995 secreting, effect. 996 valuable consideration. 993 FRIENDSHIP, showing in murder case, 135 FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, defined, 3414, 3417 escaped prisoner as, 3416 governor deciding as to, 3427 visiting other state and commit- ting offense, 3415 BxTEADiTioN, See. FURTHER EVIDENCE, when proper to admit, 2884 FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS, giving, 3279 Instructions, See. FUTURE EVENT, no false pretenses as to, 606 FUTURE PACTS, no false pretenses as to, 604 FUTURE TERM, changes in record at, 3382 G GAMBLING, Gaming, See. GAME, defined, 1011 possession of as a crime, 1029 980 INDEX. GAME! — Continued. [References are to Sections.^ GAMING HOUSE— ConWnMed. prohibiting killing of, 2514 public property, 1012 shipping into state, 1021 Fowling and Fishing, See. GAMING, aiding, abetting, betting, on election, several bets, bookmaking. 2216 2199, 2206 2207 2197 2198 checks and other things of value, 2204 dealer in game, 2215 defined, 2193 destruction of devices, 2252 device, slot machine, 2219 dice, 2203 faro, 2212 gaming house, 2194 keeping, continuing offense, 2195 interest in, 2217 keeping, not gaming, 2610 gaming table, "craps," 2201 intent, 2218 keno, 2202 manager, keeper of house, 2214 one act, 2196 policy shop, not included, 2251 pool-selling, 2198 prize boxes, 2200 public places, 2209 ferry boat, 2210 school house, 2211 outhouse, 2213 rafiling, 2203 slot machine, 2208 speculating on markets, 2205 variance, 2249, 2250 as to game, 2249 venue, 2253 witness' privilege, 2254 Defense (Gaming), See. Evidence (Gaming), See. Indictment (Gaming), See. GAMING CASE, variance, 3201 GAMING HOUSE, defined, 2194 disorderly house, 1126 interest in, offense, 2217 keeping, continuing offense, 2195 keeping distinguished from gaming, 2610 manager as keeper of, reputation of frequenters, GAMING INSTRUMENTS, as evidence, GAMING TABLE, "craps," indictment for keeping, GENERAL CONSPIRACY, effect of evidence of, GENERAL VERDICT, counts, abandoned, several counts, counts bad, degrees, arson, greater offense, finding on, larceny and burglary, murder case, proper, when. Verdict, See. GESTATION, showing period of in bastardy, GIVING AWAY LIQUORS, when not offense, GOOD CHARACTER, instructions on, GOOD FAITH, intent, how affected by, GOOD TIME, argument as to, error, GOODS, evidence, in burglary, jurisdiction, where stolen, larceny of those found, seizing and destroying, GOVERNOR, deciding as to fugitive from juB tice, extradition, power, 2214 2246 2242 2201 2230 1243 3353 3351 3352 3356 3350 3354 3355 3347 2051 1401 3282 2471 2867 746 2578 395 2515 3427 3426 INDEX. 981 IBeferences are to Sections.'] GRAND JUROR, incompetent juror, 2960 motion to quash on evidence of, 2758 witness, 3013 before grand jury, 2690, 2691 GRAND JURY, defendant before, 2759 defined, 2667 drawing and summoning, 2667 habeas corpus, no action by, 3458 federal grand jury, 2697 impaneling and organization, organizing with less than twenty-three, 2668 irregularity in summoning, 2669 unlawful grand jury, 2670 indictment by unlawful, 2671 irregularities, when imma- terial, , 2672 irregularity in selecting, 2673 objection to unlawful, 2674 record failing to show, 2675 organization, 2676, 2677 reorganizing, 2678 irregularity can not be at- tacked, 2S79 grand jury for city court, 2680 impeaching by evidence before, 3033 knowledge of, variance, 3199 number, 2667 less than twenty-three, 2668 parties before, state's attorney attending, 2692 stenographer, 2693 unauthorized person, 2694 incompetent evidence, with competent, 2695 perjury before, 1592 presenting matters to, 2696 qualification of grand jurors, age, 2681 appointment of foreman, 2682 swearing grand jury, 2683 swearing jury commissioner, 2683 receiving stolen goods, party unknown, 687 return of indictments, return into court, 2684 when not sufficient, 2685 indorsing "a true bill," 2686 foreman indorsing, 2686 indorsement of witnesses, 2687 threatening, contempt, 1695 witnesses before, subpenas, 2688 defendant, 2689 grand juror as, 2690, 2691 GRAND LARCENY, values to be added, 383 GRAVE ROBBERY, Sepitltube Violations, See. GREATER OFFENSE, general verdict is finding on, 3350 GROSS NEGLIGENCE, causing death, manslaughter, 81 GUARDIAN, abduction from, 234 GUN, firing, assault, 174 pointing, assault, 173 unloaded, 181 CoNCEixED Weapon, See. Weapon, See. GUNPOWDER, exploding as assault, H HABEAS CORPUS, 187 amending writ. 3439 contempt case. 1789 evidence on. 3461 weight of. 3462 extradition. 3438 impeaching record. 3463 judgment on. 3464, 3465 jurisdiction to issue writ, power of courts to issue, 3440 state courts, 3441 federal courts, 3442, 3443 origin of writ, 3439 petition for, facts stated, 3459 evidence in homicide case, 3460 when improper, judgment mere- ly voidable, 3456 judge de facto only, 3457 cause not considered by grahd jury, 3458 when proper, remedy on void judgment, 3444 amended judgment, void, 3445 indictment made void by amendment, 3446 jury unlawfully discharged, 3447 testing validity of statute by, 3448 982 INDEX. [References are to Sections.l HABEAS CORPUS — Continued. testing validity of ordinance, 3449 limit of time for trial, 3450, 3451 trial delayed three full terms, 3452 defendant delaying trial, 3453 trial delayed by law, 3453 demand for trial, when essen- tial, 3454 cause stricken with leave, 3455 writ of error, 3466 HABIT, proof of, illegal sale of liquor, 1452 HABITATION, defending, right to, HANDWRITING, defendant's, in forgery, expert evidence as to. 2451 979 3184 HARMLESS INSTRUCTIONS, effect of, 3258, 3259 Instructions, See. HARMLESS PRINCIPLE, instructions stating, HARVESTING GRAIN, on Sunday, HEARSAY, abortion, adultery, declarations, when are, dying declarations, incest, libel, perjury, 1657, 1658 3259 1360 1939 1971 3121 89 2092 1267 HIGHWAY, describing, in obstructing high- way, 1327 obstructing, nuisance, 1894 Obstructing Highways, See. HIRE OR GAIN, gaming indictment, HOMICIDE, evidence in, habeas corpus, on seas, indictment for. Manslaughter, See. Murder, See. 2235 3460 70 HOOK AND LINE, fishing with, 1025, Powi-iNQ AND Pishing, See. 1027 confession through, 3097 HORSE, driving fast, when not a crime, 807 driving unfit one, 81$ HORSE RACE, betting on, lottery is not. 2199 2263 HOSTILITY, impeachment by proof of, murder case, showing. 3030 144 HOTEL KEEPER, illegal sale of liquor by, selling cigars on Sunday, 1397 1357 HOUSE, arson, stating ownership, burning another's, boat or tent as, burglary, variance, breaking into or out. 854, 855 856 2101 754 758 carrying concealed weapons in one's own, 1164 larceny from, 397 "warehouse" included, 481 Disorderly House, See. HOUSE OF ILL FAME, boat or tent, "house," 2101 defined, 2098 disorderly house. 1122, 1142 evidence, terms of lease compe- tent. 2118 letting rooms to lodgers. 2100 nuisance. 2103 owner liable, 2099 reputation, immaterial, 2102 Defenses (House of 111 Fame), Evidence (House of 111 Fame), See. Indictment (House of 111 Fame), See. INDEX. 985 IReferences are to Sections.'i HUE ANB CRY, arrest by. 2652 HUSBAND AND WIFE, alimony, failure to pay, 1722 conveying property, contempt, 1760 arson by, 849 bastardy, husband's absence, 2036 witnesses, 2056 burglary, owner, 714 competency as witnesses, 2996 valid marriage essential, 2997 adultery, 2998 wife witness for co-defendant, 2999 after divorce, 3000 wife's adultery, 3001 statement to others, 3002 impeaching each other, 3003 conversation of overheard, evi- dence, 3117 disorderly house, 1130 husband absent seven years, 2022 larceny, owner, 486 liquor, sale by wife, 1389, 1461 malicious mischief, title, 828 owner, variance, 3219 rape by personating husband, 317 robbery by wife, 773 statements, hearsay, 3122 wife compelled by husband, 2458 wife's goods, husband taking, not larceny, 411 wife not accessory, 2483 Abandonment of Wite, See. Wife, See. HYPOTHETICAL OPINION, disqualifying juror, 2955 expert witness, how framed, 3075 IDENTIFICATION, impeachment, contradictory state- ment, 3029 IDENTITY, evidence of, in bribery, 1528 IDENTITY OF OFFENSE, jeopardy, 2589 IDIOT, rape of. 289 IDLERS, house attracting, disorderly house, 1123; IGNORANCE OF LAW, no defense, 2429 ILL FAME, House of III Fame, See. ILL FEELING, showing in arson, ILL TREATMENT, evidence of, ILL WILL, impeachment by, ILLEGAL ARREST, no defense in bribery, ILLEGAL VERDICT, effect of, jeopardy, unauthorized by law, when void, ILLEGAL VOTING. Elections, See. ILLEGITIMATE, incest with, Bastardy, See. ILLICIT CONNECTION, Adultebt, See. Bastardy, See. Sexual Intebcoubse, See. ILLICIT RELATIONS, In abduction, 252 in incest, 2088 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES, of deadly weapons, 217 IMMATERIAL VARIANCE, in forgery, 982, 98S IMPANELING GRAND JURY, Grand Jury, See. 885 3125 3036 1501 2625 3371 3371 2068 984 INDEX. ^References are to Sections.^ IMPEACHING CHASTITY, rape case, 337 seduction, 2151, 2152 Chastity, See. IMPEACHING JUROR, evidence, 2976 opinion formed, 2945 IMPEACHING QUESTIONS, indefinite, 2154 IMPEACHING VBiimCT, by defendant's affldaTit, by jurors, IMPEACHMENT, defendant, on alibi, husband and wife. 3361 3360 2419 3003 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES, dying statemen'ts, instructions as to, libel, rape case. Witnesses, See. 120-124 3272, 3273 1288 342 IMPERFECT PLEADINGS, perjury on, 1591 IMPLICATION, repeal by not favored, 2547 IMPLIED AVERMENTS, in indictment, 2723 IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR, state prohibiting, 1425 IMPRESSSION, ■witness not to give, when, 3082 IMPRISONMENT, contempt, not for debt, 1779 maximum term of, 2519 penalty, mitigation, 3301 place of, how determined, 3337 False Imprisonment, See. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, bastardy, 2059 commitment for contempt is not, 1731 legality of, 2526 INCEST, consent, material, 2066 immaterial, 2067 daughter defined, 2069 defined, 2064 half-blood and illegitimate, 2068 rape no defense to, 2095 single act sufficient, 2065 Defenses (Incest), See. Evidence (Incest), See. Indictment (Incest), See. INCLUDED OFFENSES, jeopardy. 2598-2601 instruction as to. 3248 verdict. 3357 INCOMPETENCY OF JUROR. waiving, 2977 INCREASING PENALTY. statute valid. 2628 INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY, jury disbelieving, 748 INCUMBRANCE, false pretenses as to. 607 INDECENT EXHIBITION, offense, 2172 INDECENT EXPOSURE, defined, 2172 seen by one person only. 2180 INDECENT LETTERS. evidence of sending, 2389 INDEPENDENT LARCENY, evidence of, 463, 467 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. validity, 2553 INDICTMENT, Generally. amendment to, 2761, 3385 habeas corpus, 3446 apprising the accused, 2701, 2702 acquittal on defective, 2605 INDEX. 985 [References are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— GENERALLY— Continued. averments to be positive, 2700 caption, 2753, 2754 charging an attempt, some act must be alleged, 2750 "attempt" implies intent, 2751 conclusion, contra statute, 2755 copy, on arraignment, 2835 . waiver, 2873 corporation, 2738 date to be positive, 2730 impossible, 2730 presumed true, 2731 defined, 2698 (lemurrer to, 2767, 2768, 2881 description, surplusage, 2722 duplicity, several offenses in one count, 2717 two felonies, 2718 nuisance by sale of liquors, 2719 poisoning several by one act, 2720 several acts enumerated, 2721 election of counts, when required, 2784 2785 2787 2752 3429 2703 2699 abandonment by, exhibit, foreign language, extradition, sufficiency, extrinsic facts, averment, facts, alleging material, foreman grand jury indorsing, 2686 illegal arrest no defense to, 2657 implied averments, 2723 indorsing, "a true bill," 2686 indorsing witnesses on, 2783 calling all, 3048 intent, statutory words, 2740 knowledge, when essential, 2741 "willfully and corruptly," 2742 "feloniously," 2742 "unlawfully," "willfully," es- sential, 2743 Jeopardy, two for same offense, 2602 one bars others, 1406 invalid indictment, 2621 Joining offenses, distinct felonies can not be joined, 2711 one part of another, 2712 cognate offenses, 2713 distinct misdemeanors, 2714 crime element of another, 2715 joint, principal and accessory, 2480 lost, supplying by copy, 2878 motion to quash, 2756 affidavit to support motion, 2757 on evidence of grand juror, 2758 INDICTMENT- GENERALLY- Continued. defendant before grand jury, 2759 indicting without evidence, 2760 unauthorized person before grand jury, 2694 negative averments, exceptions, when and when not to nega- tive, 2727 words indicating negative, 2728 word "or" meaning "to-wit," 2729 date, to be positive, 2730 impossible date, 2730 nolle pros., effect of, 2622 number, same offense, 2588, 2602 numbering counts, 2786 ownership, stating ownership, ' "belonging to," 2734 averment of specific owner- ship, 2735 averment relating to company, 2736 2737 2769 2770 2771 2716 2698 corporation owner, plea in abatement, defective, certainty required, principal and accessory, record, when is, return by grand jury, 2684, 2685 unlawful grand jury, 2671 special plea, general issue, 2764 autre fois convict, 2765 waiving defects by pleading, 2766 statute of limitations, 2732 when begins to run, 2763 statutory words, when not suffi- cient, 2704 bank insolvent, 2705 embezzlement, 2706 hiring horse, 2707 when sufficient, 2708 statutory rule, 2709 words equivalent to statute, 2710 technical averments, ornaments or devices on documents, 2744 agent's authority, immaterial, 2745 keeping open store, "shop" or "store," 2746 "tenement" not house, 2747 time and place averments, place, when material, 2724 time, "on or about," 2725 time, "then and there," 2726 trial where there are two, 2846 venue, alleging, 2739 verbal inaccuracies immaterial, 2748 witnesses, indorsing on. 2687 986 INDEX. INDICTMENT- IBeferences are to Sections.'] -Continued. INDICTMBNT- In Specific Offenses. abandonment of wife, statutory ■words sufficient, 1074 residence not essential, 1075 duplicity, wife and child, 1076 abduction, defective, 244 "willfully or feloniously," 245 against her will, 246 duplicity, 247 joining counts, 248 statutory words sufficient, 249 abortion, name of drug, 1925 administering drug, 1926 pregnancy immaterial, 1927 manner of using instrument, 1928 alleging intent, "attempt," 1929 exceptions, when to negative, 1930 adulteration of food, "human food" not essential, 1854 substance used is essential, 1855 animal fat or vegetable oils, 1856 possession of diseased meat, 1857 negativing exception, 1858 adultery, statutory words suffi- cient, 1958 marriage essential, 1959 joint, 1960 joining different offenses, 1961 when sufficient, 1962 when defective, 1963 duplicity, 1964 affray, when sufficient, 1115, 1116 arson, who is owner, 851, 853 building owned by firm, 852 owner of public building, 853a stating ownership of house, 854 owner of house, 855 house of another, 856 stating owner of house, 857 dwelling-house, 858 allegation of residence, 859 burning dwelling-house, 860 allegation of burning, 861 "stable" is building, 862 school-house, 863 duplicity, two offenses, 864 several burnings, one offense, 865 malice essential, 866 intent essential, 867 value essential, 868 day or night, 869 stating venue, 870 first and third degrees, 871 barn containing grain, 872 attempt to burn, 874 "wantonly" and "willfully," 875 allegation of burning, 876 -SPECIFIC— Con. assault, statutory words suffi- cient, 203 felonious intent essential, 203 alleging assault, 204 assault and battery included, 205, 210, 211 describing weapon, 206 alleging manner or means, 207 assault with weapon, 208, 209 assault to commit injury, 212, 216 intent to commit manslaugh- ter, 214 charging aggravated assault, 215 deadly weapon, 217 not duplicity, 218 barratry, 1486 bigamy, lawful wife living, 1993 second and first marriage, 1993 negativing exception, 1994 marrying after divorce, 1995 must allege woman, not wife, 1996 first wife living, averment, 1997 first marriage, time and place and name, 1998 blackmail, statutory words suf- ficient, 1008 defective, 1009 blasphemy, 2284 bribery, statutory words, 1509 means used essential, 1510 bribing juror, 1511 offering to bribe, 1512 receiving a bribe, 1513, 1514 "at his instance," whether eligible, 1515 allegation describing document, 1516 relating to witness, 1517 at common law, 1518 description of bribe imma- terial. 1519 venue material, 1520 indictment defective, 1521 director of corporation, 1522 knowledge material, 1523 duplicity, two offices, 1524 quantity of value, 1525 burglary, "burglariously," "fe- loniously," essential, 712 tenant is owner, 713 room, renter, bailee, 713 husband or vrtfe, owner, 714 statement of ownership, 715 ownership and "occupied," 716 duplicity, joining burglary and larceny, 717 INDEX. 987 IBeferences are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Com. INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Cora. "store" is not "building," 718 engine-room, not engine-house, 719 ■when sufficient after verdict, 720 "granary," surplusage, 721 railroad corporation, 722 negative averments, 723 descriptive words, surplusage, 724 possession of burglar's tools, 725 value, description, ownership, 726 attempt, sufficiency, 727 allegation "without consent," 728 intent, essential, 729 statutory element, essential, 730 intending felony, essential, 731 breaking and entry, 732 "within curtilage," essential, 733 compounding offenses, indictment sufficient, 1812 knowledge essential, 1813 concealed weapon, concealment essential, 1174 carrying pistol, 1175, 1179 revolver loaded, essential, 1176 must negative exception, 1177 alternative aVerment, 1178 conspiracy,- means immaterial, 1219 facts of conspiracy essential, 1220 cheating and defrauding, 1221 persons intended to be de- frauded, 1222 one may be indicted, 1223 accusing one of adultery, 1224 conspiracy to arrest another, 1225 allegation of overt act, 1226 deterring from employing, 1227 to commit several offenses, 1228 knowledge or belief imma- terial, 1229 conspiracy to obtain divorce, 1230 bill of particulars, 1231 contempt punishable by, no of- fense, 1713 disorderly conduct, religious meeting, 1095 disturbing school, 1096 profane language, 1097 acquittal of one of two, 1098 statutory words, equivalent, 1099 description of place, 1100 several acts, one offense, 1101 abusive language in presence, 1102 information insufficient, 1103, 1104, 1105 stating offense, 1104 abusive language at dwelling, 1106 disorderly house, statutory words, 1136 description of premises, 1136 "lucre or gain" immaterial,' 1137 duplicity, 1138 opium, keeper of place, 1139 owner or tenant material, 1140 lewd women in theatre, 1141 house for prostitution, 1142 charging nuisance, defective, 1143 election laws, election duly held, 2327 purpose of election essential, 2328 public notice essential, 2329 statutory words not sufficient, 2330 intent immaterial, 2331 duplicity, 2332 allegation of candidates im- material, 2333 qualifications of voter, 2334 personating another, 2335 voting at primary, 2336 making false return, 2337 charging false registration, 2338 procuring another to register, 2339 false registration, 2340 registering twice, 2341 voting fraudulently, 2342 voting more than once, 2343 acting as officer essential, 2344 officer's appointment essen- tial, 2345 description of ballots, 2346 destruction of ballots, 2347 altering ballots, ' 2348 officer willfully violating, 2349 bribing voter, 2350 breach of the peace, 2351 embezzlement, fiduciary charac- ter essential, 545 statutory words, 546 description of money, 547, 548 description of instrument, "funds," 549 ownership, defective as to, 550 when demand not essential, 551 duplicity, 552, 553, 554 public officer, averring, 555 sufficiency of, 556 "by virtue of his office," 557 bailee or trustee, 558 venue defective, 559 embracery, judicial proceeding essential, 1539 knowledge sufficiently stated, 1540 988 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Oo». INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Cow. escape and rescue, 1826 offense for which held, 1826 indictment bad, "unto," 1827 Itnowledge essential, 1828 , duplicity, 1829 when indictment sufficient, 1830 false imprisonment, 284 false pretenses, statutory words insufficient, 626 "relied on" as true, 627 "induced to part with" ma- terial, 628 false pretenses and other causes, 629 ownership essential, 630 allegation of delivery, 631 pretenses must be negatived, 632 allegation of scienter, 633 "knowingly," "designedly," 633 when no duplicity, 634 description of property, or money, 635 instrument should be described, 636 statute as to description, 637 deceiving woman, sufficient, 638 forcible entry and detainer, gen- eral description sufficient, 1040 different counts, different own- ers, 1041 facts constituting "force" es- sential, 1042 indictment, written lease, 1043 duplicity, 1044 forgery, statutory words suffi- cient, 938 alleged alteration, 939 description of forged instru- ment, 940 setting out instrument unnec- essary, 941 instrument in foreign lan- guage, 942 stating how defrauded, 943 stating facts, 944 extrinsic averments necessary, 945 strictness as in larceny, 946 to whom uttered, immaterial, 947 duplicity, forgery and utter- ing, 948 forging several indorsements, 949 joining counts, 950 person defrauded immaterial, 951 Indictment sufficient, 952 forged deed, 953 payment of money not essen- tial, 955 "as true" is material, 956 "with intept" is material, 957 signing name, knowledge im- material, 958 purport clause and tenor clause, 959 contradictory and repugnant averments, 960 alleging corporation of com- pany, 961 uttering, how instrument forged not material, 962 information imperfect, 963 fowling and fishing, when suffi- cient, 1031 negative averment, 1032 when defective, 1033 alleging exception, 1034' fraudulent conveyances, 997 gaming, statutory words suffi- cient, 2224 stating names of players, 2225 stating name of owner, 2226 thing bet immaterial, 222T scheme with machine, 2228 slot machine, gaming with it, 2229 gaming table, 2230 dealing faro, 2231 pools and book-making, 2232 duplicity, 2233. 2234 for hire or gain, 2235 in public place, 2236 betting on election, 2237 intent, when material, 2238 joining counts, gaming and keeping, 2239 joining defendants, 2240 house of ill fame, statutory words sufficient, 2107 intent immaterial, 2108 stating time and place, 2109 charging continuing offense, 2110 incest, stating kinship, 2075, 2076 knowledge immaterial, 2077 alleging "carnal knowledge," 2078 "feloniously" is essential, 2079 name immaterial, 2089 attempt, intent implied, 2081 counts in rape joined, 2082 one indictable alone, 2083 joint indictment required, 2084 intoxicating liquors, statutory words, 1430 INDEX. 989 IBeferences are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Gore. INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Core. different counts may be joined, 1431 acting as agent, 1432 to ■whom sold, 1433 kinds of liquor sold, 1433 sale to" principal or agent, 1434 complaint on information, 1435 in alternative, 1436 duplicity, different liquors, 1437 duplicity, different ways, 1438 negativing exception, 1439 defective as to time, 1440 stating nuisance, 1441 legal holiday, 1442 contrary to law, 1443 surplusage in, 1444 on election day, 1445 alleging election. 1446 kidnapping, taking child from parents, 275 duplicity, 276 exception to be negatived, 277 motive in making arrest, 278 larceny, description of property, 427, 428 description of animal, 429 description of money, 430, 431 describing notes, checks, 432 aggregating values, 433 value not an element, 434 ownership of property, 435 company as owner, 436 where ownership doubtful, 437 owner of estray, 438 owner of estate, burial goods, 439 owner's business nariie, 440 joining burglary and larceny, 441 duplicity, joining counts. 442 not duplicity, one act, 443 intent to appropriate, 444 allegation as to consent, 445 allegation as to taking, 446 alleging "against will," 447 alleging corporation, 448 "feloniously" essential, 441) venue, what county, 450 libel, libelous matter to be set out, 1271 matter too obscene to allege, 1272 innuendoes, not required, 1273 manner of publication unnec- essary, 1274 "maliciously" not essential, 1275 defaming by charging adul- tery, 1276 libel by charging degrading act, 1277 defaming woman, 1278 disgraceful conduct, innuen- does, 1279 must charge libel was in writ- ing, 1280 statutory words essential, 1281 duplicity, when and when not, 1282 lottery, words of statute suffi- cient, 2265 description of lottery ticket, 2266 duplicity, 2267 maintenance, 1487 malfeasance in office, omitted or violated duty, essential, 1555 facts of misconduct, 1556 duplicity, 1557 "knowingly," effect of, 1558 malicious mischief, overdriving animal, 812 driving unfit horse, 813 extent of injury essential, 814 ownership or control, 815 domestic animals, 816 poisonous article, 817 manner of wounding, 818 not duplicity, 819 "unlawfully" immaterial, 820 setting fire, 821 cruelty to fowls, 822 failure to feed, "unnecessarily," 823 indorsing prosecutor's name, 824 mayhem, assault included, 368 "premeditated design" essen- tial, 369' duplicity, 370 "maliciously" and "willfully" essential, 371 medicine and dentistry, without license, 1882 must aver some act, 1883 unlawfully and willfully prac- ticed essential, 1884 with or without compensa- tion, 1885 need not negative permit, 1886 publicly professing is essence, 1887 murder, premeditated malice, 61 "malice aforethought," 62 manslaughter included, 63 for murder alone, 64 weapon in which hand, 65 990 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Cora. INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Cora. "deliberately" in first degree, 66 sufficient, first degree, 67 sufficient, second degree, 68, 69 homicide on seas, 70 "human being" immaterial, 71 averment of assault, 72 "leaden balls" immaterial, 73 description of wound, 74 time, place and cause of death, 75 negligence of druggist, 76 killing third person, 77 duplicity, several instruments, 78 three using one weapon, 79 aiding, abetting, 80 weapon used, 81 obscene literature, setting out or describing, 2181 obscenity, alleging, 2182, 2184 statutory words sufficient, 2183 for depositing in mail, 2185 knowledge, 2186 duplicity, various ways, 2187 copy of obscene document, 2188 obstructing highways, descrip- tion of highways, 1327 statutory words insufficient, 1328 obstructing, stating offense, 1329 averment of obstruction, 1330 description of obstruction, 1331 one offense only, 1332 when sufficient, 1333 how road became highway, 1334 perjury, essential elements, 1624 jurisdiction must appear, 1625 oath must be material, 1626 facts sworn to must be ma- terial, 1626 materiality of former testi- mony, 1627 charging material matter, 1628 relating to election, 1629 matter in a writing sworn to, as affidavit, 1630, 1631 based on affidavit for continu- ance, 1632 immaterial assignments, 1633 form of oath not essential, 1634 "feloniously," "willfully," "knowingly," "falsely," 1635 alternative averment, 1636 authority to swear, 1637 authority to administer oath, 1638, 1639 facts must be negatived, 1640 stating the falsity, 1641 intent essential, 1642 affidavit for continuance, 1643 summary conclusion, 1645 charging subornation, 1646, 1648, 1649 knowledge essential, 1647 postal law violations, lottery scheme essential, 2374 as to lottery, 2375 stating lottery scheme, 2376 "unlawful and wrongful," es- sential, 2377 "of indecent character," im- material, 2378 address essential, 2379 matter too obscene, 2380 alleging scheme, 2381 manner of conversion, 2382 describing document, 2383 when not double, 2384 joining different acts in dif- ferent counts 2385 consolidating several indict- ments, 2386 prosecution, where commenced, 2387 public nuisance, allegation of facts, 1907 describing location, 1908 conclusion of indictment, 1909 duplicity, 1910 alleging profanity, 1911 sufficiency, as to abating, 1912 rape, force must be alleged, 307 force not essential, 308 "against will," immaterial, 309 age of accused, defense, 310 averring age of female, 311 marriage immaterial, 312 "not wife" of defendant, 313 "ravish" essential, 314 "feloniously" immaterial, 315 "female" immaterial, 316 by personating husband, 317 duplicity, 318 joining several defendants, 319 attempt, act essential, 320 simple assault included, 321 "assault and battery," when essential, 322 sufficiency of, 323 receiving stolen goods, joining larceny, 671 allegation as to larceny or false pretense, 672 value, immaterial, 673 description of goods or money, 674 INDEX. 991 [References are to Sections.'] INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Cow. INDICTMENT— SPECIFIC— Com. duplicity, 675 resisting officer, statutory words sufficient, 1571 describing "process," 1572, 1573 officer's act to be alleged, 1574 alleging how resisted, 1575 alleging knowledge, 1576 stating name, immaterial, 1577 arresting without warrant, 1578 person assisting officer, 1579 revenue law violations, statu- tory words, 2404, 2405 knowledge, 2406 "willfully and intentionally," 2407 riot, "to terror of people," 1303 "unlawful assembly," 1303 interfering with officer, 1304 when sufficient, 1305 as to employment of persons, 1306 robbery, force or intimidation es- sential; 774 description of property, 775 allegation of ownership, 776 value, 776 allegation of possession, 777 "against will," immaterial, 778 sufficiency of, 779, 781 allegations as to weapons, 780 taking from person essential, 782 seduction, statutory words suf- ficient, 2134 "unmarried" not essential, 2135 averment of chaste character, 2136 exact time immaterial, 2137 when sufficient, 2138 based on sufficient evidence, 2139 sepulture violation, statutory words sufficient, 2278 sodomy, statutory words suf- ficient, 2294 "human being," not essential, 2295 attempt, indictment, 2296 Sunday violations, to whom goods sold, 1363 exceptions in statute, 1364 keeping open for sports, 136R sufficient, base ball, 1366 date alleged not Sunday, 1367 information sufficient, selling liquor, 1368 trespass, forbidden to enter, 1061 "without consent" essential, 1062 when no duplicity, 1063 sufficient for cutting timber, 1064 Affidavit, See. Infoemation, See. Variance, See. INDIFFERENCE, intent compared to, INDORSEMENTS, forging several. 2466 949 INDORSING "WITNESSES, on indictment, 2783 Indictment, See. INDUCEMENTS. in abduction, 233 INFAMOUS CRIME, impeaching defendant by, 3023 impeaching witness on, 3182 INFAMOUS PUNISHMENT, what is, 3299 INFANT, exposing as an assault, 172 rape, consent, 305 INFERENCE, from circumstantial evidence, 3211 INFORMATION, accuracy, as indictments, 2775 affidavit on, in contempt, 1739 amendments to, 2776 classes of, 2773 complaint on, illegal sale of liquor, 1435 indictments compared to, 2772 misdemeanors, 2774 murder, defective, 2778 state's attorney filing, 2777 Bastardy, See. Indictment, See. INITIALS, describing person by, variance in. 2749 3221, 3223 992 INDEX. INJUNCTION, [References are to Sections.'] INSTRUCTIONS— Oowiijitted. nuisance, sale of liquor, violating, contempt. 1423 1683 INMATES OF DISORDERLY HOUSE, language of, 1147 reputation of, 1147 INNER DOOR, forcibly entering, burglary, 695 INNOCENCE, presumed, in libel, INNOCENT PERSON, kiling, murder, INNUENDOES, In libel, indictment, INQUEST, showing defendant's statements at, INSANITY, burden of proving, defense, homicide, evidence on, medical experts, common witness competent, reputed to be insane, instruction as to, 3269, kidnapping insane person. Defenses (Insanity), See. 2942 1284 12 1273 128 86 58 3164 3165 3166 3167 3270 274 INSOLVENCY, embezzlement inferred from, 500 evidence to show, 646 INSPECTING HERDS, before sale of milk, INSTRUCTIONS, accomplice uncorroborated, alibi, casting suspicion on, arbitrary rule in, circumstantial evidence, construction of, contradictory, defendant, in favor of, not complete, 1848 3283 3245 2416 3257 3285 3261 3255 3243 3244 defendant, same as any other witness, 3275, 3276 not testifying, 3277 disregarding testimony, 3274 drunkenness, 3271 duty of jury, 3286 judge of law, 3287 facts assumed by, 3250 further ones, 3279 error in, 161 evidence must support, 3247 exceptions to, too general, 2855 when to take, 2856 to be specific, 2857 capital case, 2858 explaining claims of parties, 3251 "given" or "refused," 3239 good character, 3282 harmless, when, 3258, 3259 hypothetically given, 3241 irrelevant, 3256 intent, 3262 insanity, 3269, 3270 included offense, 3248 impeachment of witnesses, 3272, 3273 murder case, 160 verdict, 162 "ninety and nine," 3281 object of, 3237 opinion of court, 3246 party must prepare, 3240 possession of stolen property, 460 presumption, 3278 prosecution, few for, 3242 rape, 295, 360 consent, 359 reciting facts where no evidence, 3253 refusing, 3280 repeating, 3260 reasonable doubt, 2493, 2494, 3263 self-defense, 3267 burden on, 3268 singling out facts, 3254 statute quoting, 3284 suggesting a presumption, error, 3252 testimony, "each link," 3264 theory, 3249 words, various ones, 3265, 3266 written or oral, 3238 INSTRUMENT, abortion, proof of, 1945 forgery, evidence of, 966 indictment, setting out, 941 INDEX. 993 IReferences are to Bections.] INSTRUMENT— OoMtiMMed. INTENT— Continued. basis of, 931, 932 variance as to. 987 Abortion, See. FoRGEEY, See. INSTRUMENTS FOR GAMING, use of as evidence, 2242 INSULTING WORDS, do not justify assault, INSURANCE POLICY, as evidence, in arson, 195 878 INTENT, abandonment of wife, 1069 abduction, 252, 253 abortion, 1929 animals killed, 801, 802 arson, 841, 882, 883 burning own house, 842 essential, 867 circumstantial evidence, 884 assault, 203 proof, 219 attempt, implied from, 2751 blackmail, 1010 burglary, 729 essential, 710 proof of, 744 construction governed by, 2533 contempt, disclaiming, 1704 when not material, 1716 corporation, defense by, 2457 defendant may tell, 2472 drunkenness affects, 2323, 2424 election law, 2323, 2331 element of crime, 2463 embezzlement, 499 insolvency, effect, 500 immaterial, when, 501 essential, when, 2470 evidence of, 3136 other offenses, 3138 false pretenses, 583, 644 forgery, 917, 951, 927, 973 presumed, when, 972 proof, 976 gaming, 2218 indictment, 2238 good faith and belief, 2471 highway obstructed, 1317 house of ill fame, 2108 Incest, implied, 2081 indictment, alleging, 2740-2743 hughes' c. l. — 63 indifference compared to, 2466" instruction on, 3262' larceny, 380, 444 essential, 407 inferring, 474;- "maliciously," implies, 2467' material, when, 2468 mayhem, 363, 364, 365 effect where wanting, 36S inferred, when, 37J murder, 54 perjury, 1642 piracy, 2411 presumption of, from act, 2464 actual knowledge immaterial, 246S positive intent and indiffer- ence, 2466 principal and accessory's, 2482 public nuisance, 1901 rape, 303 recklessness compared to, 246* robbery, 785. sale of intoxicant, 1383, 1398: variance as to, 3231 "willfully" implies, 2467 INTENTION TO REPAY, effect on false pretenses, 602 INTENTIONAL KILLING, in murder, 24 INTERCOURSE, enticing away for, 240, 241 INTERNATIONAL EXTRADI- TION, Extradition, See. INTERPRETER, deaf mute testifying, 3005 INTERROGATORIES, contempt case, amending. 1757 1758 INTERSTATE COMMERCE, lottery tickets, 2258, 2259 INTIMIDATION, robbery. 774- 994 INDEX. [References are to Sections.] INTOXICATING LIQUORS, ale, 1375 beer, 1375 cider, 1375 classes of, 1374 conspiracy. Inducing sale by, 1207 continuing ofCense, 1379 defined, 1373 disorderly house, 1382 sale by, 1127, 1148 dram shop, bond, 1480 drinking on premises, 1378 election day, 1385 gift of, 1380, 1381 jury drinking, effect on verdict, 3359 jury, selecting, 1478 medicine, sale as, 1377 minors, sale to, 1383, 1384 name, immaterial, 1376 penalty, suit for, 1479 persons liable for selling, prin- jjipal liable for clerk's acts, 1386 T)rincipal liable with clerk, 1387 principal not liable, 1388 sales by wife, 1389 partners liable for sales by each other, 1390 ■clerk or manager liable, 1391 .aiding and abetting, 1392 druggists and physicians lia- ble, 1393 social clubs, 1394, 1395 common seller, 1396 hotel-keeper making sales, 1397 power to regulate sales, grant- ing and refusing license, 1413 •city regulating by license, 1414 license is not property, 1415 municipal power limited, 1416 municipal control, near churches and schools, 1417 violating ordinance and stat- ute, 1418 legislative power, 1419 state's power to regulate, 1420 power to seize liquors, 1421 police power, ordinance, 1422 nuisance may be enjoined, 1423 statute discriminating, ordi- nance, 1424 state prohibiting importation, 1425 proceedings for forfeiture, ev- idence, 1426 ordinance, statute valid, 1427 minors frequenting saloons, 1428 ■statute constitutional, 1429 «ale is place of delivery, 1477 INTOXICATING LIQUORS— C?o». Sunday sale, indictment, 1368 whisky, 1375 wine, 1375 Defenses (Intoxicating Liq- uors), See. Evidence ( Intoxicating Liq- uors), See. Indictment (Intoxicating Liq- uors), See. Variance (Intoxicating Liq- uors), See. INTOXICATING QUALITIES, how proved, 1454 INTOXICATION, opinion as to, 3176 public place, 1089 IRREGULARITIES, drawing jury, harmless, 2911 grand jury, when immaterial, 2672 in summoning, 2669 in selecting, 2673 ground for challenging juror, 2914 removing juror, waiver, 2978 waiver, no exception taken, 2852 Exceptions, See. Error, See. IRRELEVANT INSTRUCTIONS, effect of, 3256 ITINERANT, selling drugs, JAIL, subject of arson. 1870 837 JEOPARDY, acquittal in wrong county, 2608 when a bar, 2584 arson, 850 conviction, one of several counts, 2596 wrong county, 2608 when no bar, 2609 defective indictment, acquittal, 2605 quashed, ' 2606 different offenses, "keeping gam- ing house," distinct from "gam- ing," 2610 INDEX. 995 IReferences are to Sections.} JEOPARDY—Continued. riot and assault, 2611 single offense, splitting offense, 2612 arson and murder at one act, 2613 dismissal after trial commenced, 2618 after plea of guilty, 2619 forgery, 991 forged check in possession, 2597 fraudulent conviction, 2626, 2627 game law, 1020 identity of offense, 2589 illegal verdict, effect, 2625 included offenses, part of libel- ous words, 2598 conviction of included offense, 2599 conviction of lesser offense, 2600 conviction of second degree, 2601 increasing penalty, 2628 jury, unlawfully discharged, 2616 can not agree, 2614 discharged after jeopardy, 2615 void verdict, 2617 larceny, 420, 421, 422 misdemeanor, acquittal, 2585 murder, when barred, 2595 nolle pros., good indictment, 2622 one offense, two Indictments, 2602 preliminary examination, 2623 principal and accessory, 2604 removal, new trial, 2590 arrest of judgment, 2596 reversal of judgment, 2591 indictments, held to be the same, 2592 several violations, one act, 2593 shooting or striking, 2603 sickness stopping trial, 2624 splitting offenses, 850 time when attaches, 2587 two governments involved, 2586 two indictments, bar, 2588 verdict unlawfully returned, 2620 JOINING COUNTS, gaming, forgery. 2239 950 JOINING DEFENDANTS, gaming, receiving stolen goods. 2240 688 JOINING OFFENSES, cognate offenses. 2713 JOINING OFFENSES— Continued. ' distinct felonies can not be joined, 2711 distinct misdemeanors, 2714 part of another offense, 2712 JOINT INDICTMENT, adultery, 1960 arson, 865 incest, 2083, 2084 principal and accessory, 2480 JOINT OWNER, when not guilty of larceny, 414 JUDGE, administering oath, perjury, 1661 authority of, 2899 after adjournment, 2900 contempt, slandering, 1692 reflecting on, 1693 trial of by, 1721 invading one's rights, " 1728 criminal cases for certain terms, 2903 de facto, hateas corpus, 3457 defaming, when not libel, 1269 examining witnesses, 3055 felony case, when can not try, 2901 improper remarks by, 2859 motion for new trial before, 3321 officer defending, not murder, 50 prejudice of, change of venue, 2813 trial, leaving bench during, 2902 JUDGMENT, arrest of, effect, 3309 removes jeopardy, 2590 bastardy, 2016 committing before in contempt, void, 1783 contempt, void, when, 1780 in alternative, 1786 void, habeas corpus, 1789 costs follow, 3297 false pretenses, 658 Jiaheas corpus, void, 3444, 3464, 3465 amended, 3445 voidable, 3456 jury waived, voidable, 2583 recitals in, validity, 3346 Contempt, See. Sentence, See. JUDICIAL NOTICE, as to intoxicating liquors, 1375 996 INDEX. [References are to Secftows.] JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, essential in embracery, 1539 JURAT OF OFFICER, as evidence, in perjury, 1655 JURISDICTION, abandonment of wife, 1080 abortion, 1947 adulteration of food, state or federal, 1862 affidavit void, 2563 appeal confers, 2561 arrest unlawful, 2574 bastardy, bond confers, 2061 circuit or county court, 2580 conflict in, 2578 consent, not conferred by, 2559 contempt, 1723 affidavit necessary, 1737 facts showing, 1738 determining, 1803 conviction without, 2607 county of, 2581 defined, 2558 election law violation, 2360 embezzlement, federal courts, 574 what courts, 575 venue, 576 facts determine, 2582 false pretense, 659 forgery, 990 fraud, void where obtained by, 2562 haieas corpus, 3440, 3443 judgment voidable, jury waived, 2583 justice of the peace, 2908, 2909 jury can not be waived, 2560 justice proceeding, when no bar, 2564 lost, how, 2567 perjury, 1625, 1669 piracy, 2413 presumed, when, 2582 sale of liquors, 1477 sentence, suspended indefinitely, 2568 same term, 2569 after term expires, 2570 term of court abolished, 2571 at future term, 3334 several counts, 2906 state or federal courts, 2575, 2577 embezzlement, national bank, 2576 two states involved, goods stolen, 2578 when concurrent, 2579 JURISDICTION— OoMtiMwed. statute invalid, 2566' Sunday violations, 1372 two punishments, 2573 writ of error suspends, 2572 wrong action, 2565 JUROR, bribing, 1497, 1498, 1510, 1511 contempt, 1694 challenge, served within year, 2931 contempt, 1724 county where offense committed, 2925 court's improper examination, 2962 defendant's right to disqualified, 2963 detective association, belonging to, 2959 disqualified, new trial, 3319, 3320 duty as to verdict, each juror, 3378 embracery, as offense, 1534, 1535 examinations prove incompeten- cy, 2961 filling panel of, 2912 grand juror incompetent, 2960 impeaching, evidence, 2976 impeaching verdict by, 3317, 3360 influenced, defense in embra- cery, 1538 officer treating, offense, 1536 opinions which disqualify, ex- pressed opinion, 2944 juror impeached, formal opin- ion, 2945 when does not disqualify, 2946 not expressed, 2947 prejudiced juror, incompetent, 2948 decided opinion, 2949 from reading accqunts, 2950 real and believed statements, 2951 fixed opinion, 2952 statutory provision on, 2953 opinions which do not disqual- ify, conversed, but no opinion, 2954 opinion once held, 2954 hypothetical opinion, 2955 opinion, not positive, 2956 hearing facts, no disqualifica- tion, 2957 examination showing compe- tency, 2958 belonging to detective associa- tion, 2959 privilege of, 2964 sickness of, stopping trial, 2624 INDEX. 997 JUROR — Continued. [References are to Sections.l JURY— 'CowtiwMed. waiving disqualification. 2977 ■witness. 3012 JuEY, See. JURY, amending verdict, 3362 challenge for cause, must state grounds, 2926 two classes, 2927 scruples as to death penalty, 2928 time of, 2929 exercising right of, 2930 served as juror within year, 2931 challenge to array, 2919 proving, 2920 grounds for, 2921 ■ good cause for, 2922 challenging polls, 2923 county where crime committed, 2925 court judge of law, 2985 credibility of witnesses, 3017 disagreed in murder case, bail, 2665 disbelieving incredible testimo- ny, 748 ■discharge, no agreement, 2614 recalling after, 2975 juror on other case, 2989 sick juror, 2990 before verdict, 3376 drawing jury, harmless irregu- larities, 2911 filling panel of jurors, 2912 drawing additional jurors, 2913 irregularity grounds for chal- lenge, 2914 ■drinking intoxicants, 3359 •examination, proper question, 2941 presuming defendant inno- cent, 2942 court controls, 2943 ■experiments by, 3142 facts for in disorderly conduct, 1108 false pretense, 660 filling the panel, statutory mode, 2915 sheriff calling by-standers, 2916 panel, when "exhausted," 2917 special bailiff, sheriff objected to, 2918 habeas corpus, unlawfully dis- charged, 3447 instruction as to duty of, 3286 irregularity in summoning, waiv- er, 2978 jeopardy, unlawfully discharged, 2616 judges of law, when, 2986 instruction as to, ' 3287 judges of witnesses and facts, 2987 motion to quash venire, 2924 new trial, improperly influenced, 3318 officer in charge, not sworn, 2968 minor as, 2969 peremptory challenge, common law, 2932 by statute, 2933 without cause, 2934 number to "each party," 2935 defendants join, 2936 each defendant, when, 2937 when right of exercised, 2938 not exhausted, when, 2939 exercising right, 2940 polling, 3377 punishment, when fixed by, 2521, 3296 ruling on competency, review, 2982 when not reviewable, 2983 practice, on challenging, 2984 selecting, in sale of liquors, 1478 separation of jury, 2970 during trial, 2971 when not prejudicial, 2972 when presumed injurious,- 2974 statute on examination valid, 2988 swearing jury, record entry, 2965 form of oath, 2966 to be sworn in each case, 2967 jeopardy attaches, 2587 value in larceny, verdict, 491 verdict, duty as to, 3378 viewing premises, 3203 waiving trial by, 2874 jurisdiction, 2560 judgment voidable, 2583 statute on, 2980 demand for jury trial, 2981 weighing evidence, 3202 weighing dying statement, 118 written statement, not to take, 124 Grand Jury, See. Question op Fact, See. Trial by Jury, See. JURY COMMISSIONER, swearing, 2683 JURY TRIAL, contempt case, 1730 demand for, 2981 in territories of United States, 2991 998 INDEX. [References are JUSTICE OP THE PEACE, appeal from, 2910 jurisdiction of, 2908 Included offense, 2909 malfeasance in office, 1546 power of, 2907 contempt, 1672 •when proceedings before no bar, 2564 K KEEPER OF HOUSE OF ILL FAME, who is. 2111 KENO, gaming, 2200, 2202 KEPT MISTRESS, defined, KIDNAPPING, "against will" essential, definition, duplicity, joining counts, ■force not essential, joining with abduction, threats, Abduction, See. Defenses, See. KILLING, result of conspiracy, murder, to prevent escape, KINSHIP, indictment stating, incest, 2075, 2076 237 266 276 267 248 267 1191 2654 KNOWLEDGE, bribery, compounding offenses, conspiracy, embracery, escape and rescue, false pretenses, forgery, intent, game law, incest, indictment alleging, injunction, contempt, intent, how affected by, 1523 1813 1229 1540 1817, 1828 644 917, 958, 972 1022 2078 2741 1683 2465 to SecHows.] KNOWLEDGE^-CowMnwed. law, presumed, lottery, evidence of, malfeasance in office, obscene literature. 2322 226i 2269 155S 2186 perjury, falsity, resisting officer, revenue law violation, sale of adulterated food, liquors, stolen goods received. 1647 1583, 1584 1576 2406 1852 1398 677 L LABELS, evidence in larceny, forgery. 473 937 LABOR, on Sunday, 136i LABOR UNIONS, employer discharging member of, 2509 obscene. 2176 promise to marry implied from 214i LARCENY, asportation sufiScient, 377 assault to commit. 189 attempt, 399 bailee converting. 403 building. 396 house. 397 building, shop or store-house, 384 burglary. 753 penalty. 761 acquittal. 762 burglary and larceny, joinder, 717 carrier opening package. 401 changing bill, money. 393 concealing for reward. 391 definition. 375 dogs, 389 embezzlement as larceny, stat ute, 495 when no embezzlement, 505 , 567 goods found. 395 intention. 380 mistake. 394 owner consenting. 2428 INDEX. 999^ [References are to Sections.} LARCENY— Continued. owner, stealing, 404 ownership, 385-387 farm products, 388 pecuniary gain, 381 person asleep, 398 person, stealing from, 398 possession, 385 trick or fraud, 392 classes of, 402 receiving stolen goods, distinct from, 667 acquittal, 669 jdinder, 671 charging, 672 proof, 678 robbery, 768 secrecy essential, 378 servant's possession is master's, 400 stealing essential, 376 stray animal, 379 value is market value, 382 adding values, 383 verdict, general, 490 stating value, 491 water, 390 wild animals, 389 Defenses, See. Indictment (Larceny), See. Vabiance (Larceny), See. LARCENY AND BURGLARY, general verdict, effect, 3354 LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT, evidence of, seduction, 2151 LAW, court judge of, 2985 ignorance of. 2429 jury judges of. 2986 instruction. 3287 punishment fixed by. 2520 reasonable doubt not applicable to, 2491 trial delayed by, habeas corpus, 3453 CoNSTiTiTTiONAL LAW, See. LAW BOOKS, counsel reading from, LAW OF PROCEDURE, after statute repealed, 2871 2885 LAWFUL PURPOSE, disorderly house kept for, U34 LEADING QUESTIONS, improper, when, 3056 rape case, 34& LEASE, effect of in forcihle entry and detainer, 104? terms of, house of ill fame, 211» LEGAL ADVICE, Advice, See. LEGAL CUSTODIAN, larceny by, 41S LEGAL ELECTION, essential, violating the law, 232i LEGAL HOLIDAY, sale of liquor on, 1442 LEGAL QUESTION, Qttestion of Law, See. LEGISLATIVE POWER, as to sales of liquor, 1419> LEGISLATOR, bribing. 1494 LEGISLATURE, can not abridge power to pun- ish contempts, 1671 prescribing rule of evidence, 144T Constitutional Law, See. LESSER OFFENSE, conviction, jeopardy, 2600 extradition, trial for, 3420 instruction as to, 324S verdict, included offense, 335T 1405 LESSOR OF PREMISES, not liable for illegal liquor sale, LETTER, collecting debt by threatening, 1002 cross-examination on, 3062 defendant's declarations, 3114: 1000 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] LETTER— OOMHMMed. dunning through mail, 2370 evidence, in bastardy, 2033 evidence that indecent mailed, 2389 false pretenses by fictitious, 589 impeachment by use of, 3032 obscene matter by, 2372 opening, offense, 2369 LEWD CONDUCT, evidence of, house of ill fame, 2114 LEWD WOMEN, theater, disorderly house, 1141 LIBEL, agent's acts, liability, 1259 aiding and abetting, 1258 defendant's chastity not pre- sumed, 1284 defined, 1255 facts constituting, 1257 mail, sending through, 1260 newspaper publication, 1256 publication, defaming charac- ter, 1261 defaming several, 1262 -writing, 1280 Defenses (Libel), See. Evidence (Libel), See. Indictment (Libel), See. LIBELOUS MATTER, setting out, indictment in libel. LIBELOUS WORDS, acquittal on part, jeopardy, 1271 2598 lilCENSE, 'disorderly house, 1132 practicing medicine without, 1881, 1882 public nuisance, 1904 vending drugs, 1866 Medicine and Dentistry, See. LICENSE TO SELL LIQUOR, burden as to on defendant, 1450 city regulating, 1414 defense, 1408 effect of sale by one partner, 1410 oral, 1411 granting and refusing, 1413 property, is not, 1415 . transfer, 1409 Intoxicating LiQtroBS, See. LIFE, abortion to save, 1931 LIQUOR QUESTION, election on, illegal vote, 2302 LIQUORS, nuisance by sale of, 2719 Intoxicating Liquors, See. LIST OF WITNESSES, waiver of, 2873 LITERATURE, Obscene Literature, See. LITIGANTS, arresting, contempt, 1680 LOAN, bank deposit as, 533 LODGERS, letting rooms to, ill fame, 2100 LONG USAGE, as defense in public nuisance, 1904 LOST INDICTMENT, supplying by copy, 2878 LOST PROPERTY, larceny of, 395, 423 LOTTERY, aiding and abetting, 2260 candy box scheme, 2257 defined, 2255 knowledge an element, 2261 paper showing result not in- cluded, -" 2259 scheme held to be, 2256 territory not in statute,' 2258 variance as to name of, 2271 Defenses (Lottery), See. Evidence (Lottery), See. ' Indictment (Lottery), See. .LOTTERY SCHEME, indictment as to, 2374, 2375, 2376 INDEX. 1001 IReferencea are to Sections.} LOTTERY TICKETS, carrying from place to embezzling proceeds of. MACHINE, gambling with, M place, 225S, 2259 542 2228 MAGISTRATE, prisoner before, arrest without warrant, 2645 MAIL, lottery, offense, 2262 obscene literature in, indict- ment, 2185 obscene books, 2178 obstructing, 2362 conspiracy, 1206 sending drug by, abortion, 1924 sending through, libel, 1260 Postal Law Violations, See. MAINTENANCE, defined, indictment for, MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, "collector and custodian," consequences, responsibility, defined, disregard of duty, extortion as, justice of the peace, misappropriating funds, officer, de facto, refusing to discharge duty, deputy, clerk, must turn over funds. 1483 1487 1549 1550 1542 1544 1543 1546 1545 1548 1547 1548 1549 1551 Defenses (Malfeasance in Office), See. Indictment (Malfeasance in Of- fice), See. MALICE, animal killed, 800 arson, 866 disproving, in libel, 1290 malicious mischief, 805 murder, 2 premeditated, not presumed, 26, 137 in murder, 61 weapon used, 136 Intent, Seft Theeats, See. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF, animals, killing or wounding, "cattle," includes goats, cock fighting, neglecting, birds, domestic animals, defacing or misusing buildings dogs, killing, intent, when material, malicious, malice, essence of offense, one's own included. Defenses See. Evidence See. Indictment (Malicious Mischief), See. 794 795 796 803 798 804 799 801 802 800 797 (Malicious Mischief), (Malicious Mischief), MANAGER, as keeper of gaming-house, 2214 MANDAMUS, bill of exceptions secured by, 3399 MANSLAUGHTER, accessories to, 32 assault and battery, 28, 214 death from abortion, 1948 definition, 27 gross negligence resulting in death, 31 included in indictment for mur- der, 63 loaded gun, pointed without ex- amination, 29 verdict of acquits of murder, 159 willful omission of duty, 30 Defenses (Manslaughter), See. MuBDER, See. MARKET VALUE, Value, See. MARKETS, speculating on, gaming, 2205 statutes against speculating on, 2502 MARKS, showing in larceny case, MARRIAGE, adultery, belief that void, bigamy. 473 1950 1984 1002 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.l MARRIAGE — Continued. bigamy, void, 1989, 1993 proving former, 1998, 2004 declarations to show, 2000 cohabitation, 1999 common law, bigamy, 1982 consent, bigamy, 1981 defense, in abduction, 243 in kidnapping, 272 in rape, 300 in seduction, 2132, 2163 delivery, in bastardy, 2025 divorce, after, not adultery, 1955 divorce, bigamy, 1995 evidence, when sufficient, 1972 good without ceremony, 1986 presumption as to continuance, 1965 prohibited, bigamy, 1990 proving, by reputation, 1966 by record, 1967 by contract or certificate, 1968 rape, effect on, 312 seduction, offer, 2163 preparations for, defense, 2164 valid, husband and wife as wit- nesses, 2998 Seduction, See. MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, evidence in adultery, 1968 MARRIED WOMAN, complainant, in bastardy, 2024 MASTER AND SERVANT, gaming, servant not guilty, 2222 servant guilty of burglary, 709 servant's possession is master's, 400 MATERIALITY, in perjury, 1586, 1589, 1590, 1599, 1601 1627, 1628, 1652 MATTER, when immaterial, in perjury, 1599, 1601 MAXIMS, falsus in uno, falsus in omniius. MAYHEM, definition, intent, specific, how determined, 3273 361 363, 364 365 MAYHEM — Continued. "slit" and "bite," 362 Defenses (Mayhem), See. Evidence (Mayhem), See. Indictment (Mayhem), See. MEDICAL EXPERTS, insanity, 3165 opinion of, contradicting, 3178 witness, 3077-3079 testimony, when incompetent, 3177 MEDICINE, selling intoxicant as, 1377 MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY, statutes regulating practice, po- lice power, 1863 persons excepted, 1864 regulating pharmacy, 1865 venders of drug, license, 1866 that on dentistry valid, 1867 relating to dentistry, 1868 when no recovery for serv- ices, 1869 specialist not itinerant, 1870 Defenses (Medicine and Dentist- ry), See. Evidence (Medicine and Dentist- ry), See. Indictment (Medicine and Den- tistry), See. MEETING, disturbing, as offense, 1086 MEMORANDUM, witness refreshing memory by, 3057 MEMORY, witness refreshing by memo- randum, 3057 MENTAL CONDITION, Insanitt, See. MERCHANT, carrying weapon, for delivery, 1167 MERE PRESENCE, accessory, not sufficient, 2461, 2474 MERGER, in case of conspiracy, 1196 INDEX. 1003 [References are to Sections."] MIDWIVES, unlawfully practicing medicine, MILK, possession of impure, sale of adulterated, term includes what, MILK DEALERS, working on Sunday, MINING OPERATIONS, on Sunday, MINOR, age, best evidence of, defendant in seduction, frequenting saloons, larceny by, officer in charge of jury, sale of liquor to, 1383, 1384, 1451, state reformatory punishment, voting, defense, MISCARRIAGE, Aboktion, See. MISCHIEF, Malicious Mischief, See. MISDEMEANOR, accessory in, acquitted, jeopardy, arrest without warrant, 2639, change of venue in case of, conspiracy as, at common law, informations for, joinder, when, extradition for, penalty, smuggling, MISTAKE, election officers, no offense, 2318 larceny, advantage of mistake, 394, 410 MISTRESS, 1871 1861 1843 1843 1358 1354 3144 2130 1428 424 2969 1463 3290 2319 2479 2585 2641 2825 1187 2774 2714 3413 3289 2393 defined, MITIGATION, in malicious mischief, 237 827 MONEY, bond for, in bribery, 1493 changing, larceny, 393 description, larceny, 430 embezzlement, 547, 548 false pretenses, 635 identifying in larceny, 462 payment, in forgery, 955 presumed, in forgery, 969 procured by false pretenses, 658 public officer misappropriating, 1545 variance, 3228, 3229 value, allegation of, 548 MONEY ORDER, forging, 984 issuing without collecting, of- fense, 2371 MORAL CERTAINTY, Reasonable Doubt, See. 594 615 2019 2015 MORTGAGE, false pretenses in connection with, MORTGAGEE, waiving lien, false pretenses, MOTHER, complaining, in bastardy, death of, in bastardy, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, New Teial, See. MOTION TO QUASH, affidavit to support, 2757 defendant before grand jury, 2759 evidence of grand juror, 2758 exception to ruling on, 2848 overruled, when, 2756 venire of jurors, 2924 MOTIVE, arson, 882, 883 carrying concealed weapon, 1171 declarations to prove, 3112 making arrest, 278 homicide, 140 evidence of, 138, 3136 threats, 141 Intent, See 1004 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] MULATTO CHILD, In bastardy, 2045 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, authority to suppress disorderly houses, 1152 granting liquor license, 1414 power to regulate sale of liquor, 1416, 1417 MUNICIPAL ELECTION, as election, 2300 MURDER, arson causing, 2613 assault with intent to, 191, 192 cooling time, 3, 4 conspiracy, result of, 1191 death from abortion, 1916 death from neglected wound, 15 definition, 1 degrees of murder, 18 Massachusetts, 19 Indiana, 20 Iowa, 21 Missouri, 22 first degree, deliberation, 23, 25 second degree, intention of killing, 24 premeditated malice not pre- sumed, 26 deliberation, time of, 5 duelling, 1154 food, killing person for, 14 forcing person to do an act, 17 general verdict, when proper, 3355 information for, 2778 innocent person, 12 instructions, 160, 161, 162 jeopardy, 2595 means employed, 2603 malice, 2 provocation, 10 robbery, killing in, 6 shooting recklessly, 9 stay of execution, 164 swearing falsely, 16 third person, 8 trespasser, 13 two killed by one act, jeopardy, 2593 unborn child, 7 unlawful act, doing, 11 variance in, 155, 156, 157 venue, 163 verdict as to degree, 158, 159 waiving rights, 165 Capital Cases, See. MURDER— Continued. Evidence (Murder), See. Defenses (Murder), See. Indictment (Murder), See. Manslaughter, See. MUTUAL COMBAT, as defense, N NAME, authority to sign, proor, burglary, variance as to, forgery, fictitious, proof of, one of several, variance as to, incest, person injured, variance. 2459 650 759 901 981 983 2080 3216 proof of forging one of several, 981 resisting officer, 1577 sale of liquor, variance as to, 1475 variance in, 3220-3223 in forgery, 983 NAME OP CORPORATION, variance, 3218 NAMES OP PLAYERS, indictment for gaming. 2225 NATIONAL BANK, embezzlement from, jurisdic- tion, 2576 officers embezzling, 524 NEGATIVE, words indicating. 2728 NEGATIVE AVERMENTS, indictment, 2727, 2728 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE, Evidence, See. NEGATIVE PROPOSITION, burden of proving, 3087 NEGATIVING EXCEPTION, in bigamy, 1994 Indictment, See. NEGLIGENCE, death, manslaughter, no intent, druggist causing. 31 54 76 INDEX. 1005 [References are to Sections.} NEGLIGENCE— OontiMwed. NOISE, escape and rescue, party's, new trial, 1819 3326 NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS, as bribery, 1499 NETS, fishing with, 1024 NEW TRIAL, arrest of judgment, 3309 conspiracy, for all, 1253 discretionary with court, 3316 disqualified juror, 3319, 3320 examining witnesses without notice, 3328 jeopardy, 2590 jurors can not impeach verdict, 3317 jury improperly influenced, 3318 motion for, effect, 3309 not stating reasons, 3310 object of, 3311 time to make, 3312 verification, 3313 counter affidavits on, 3313 not necessary, when, 3314 overruling indirectly, 3315 same judge to hear, 3321 new evidence, cumulative, 3322 changing result, 3323 impeaching, 3325 origin of, 3308 party guilty of negligence, 3326 reversal on evidence, 3327 rules governing, 3308 witness admitting perjury, 3324 NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE merely impeaching, new trial on ground of. 3325 3322, 3323 NEWSPAPER, false pretenses by publication in, 592 juror reading, opinion formed from, 2950 selling on Sunday, 1355 Libel, See. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION, as libel, 1256 NIGHT-TIME, in burglary. 693 1302 2622 1217 3080 3038 not essential, in riot, NOLLE PROSEQUI, jeopardy, effect of, in conspiracy, NON-EXPERT WITNESS, competency, opinion by. Witnesses, See. NON-RESIDENT, ' bastardy suit, by, 2012 jurisdiction in abandonment of wife, where wife resides, 1080 voting, offense, 2305 NON-RESIDENT WITNESS, promise to attend, continuance, 2805 NOTARY PUBLIC, power in contempts, NOTES, describing, in larceny, • Promissory Note, See. NOTICE, election, indictment, examining witnesses without, intention to amend, contempt, service, when not necessary, judgment without void. Judicial Notice, See. NOXIOUS THING, in abortion, what is, NUDE PICTURES, exhibiting, obscene literature, variance, NUISANCE, blasphemy as, 2285 breaking peace by abating, 1092 disorderly house as, 1143 house of ill fame as, 2103, 2117 1729 432 2329 3328 3384 1743 1746 1782 1918 2170 2192 1006 INDEX. IBeferences are to SectionsJ] ysmSANC^— Continued. liquor sale, 1423, 1441, 2719 evidence, 1460 obstruction on highway as, 1319, 1324 Public Nuisances, See. NUMBER OF WITNESSES, two not essential in perjury, 1650 NUNC PRO TUNC, plea, 2839 O OATH, form of, not essential in per- jury, 1634 for juror, 2966 competency of witness, 3004 grand jury, 2683 material, in perjury, 1626 officer administering, in per- jury, 1603-1606 unauthorized, whether perjury, 1617 unauthorized person, whether perjury, 1618, 1619 Jury, See. Peejurt, See. OBJECTION, improper argument, unlawful grand jury. Trial and Incidents, See. 286S 2674 OBSCENE CONDUCT, indecent exposure. 2172 OBSCENE DOCUMENT, copy of, indictment, 2188 evidence of. 2190 OBSCENE LANGUAGE, defense. 2175 definition. 2167 indecent exhihition. 2171 nude pictures, 2170 obscenity, a question of fact. 2173 publication. 2169 obscene painting. 2168 scandals, publishing. 2174 sending through mail. 2367 variance in, 2191 2192 Defenses (Obscene Literature), See. Evidence (Obscene Literature), See. Indictment (Obscene Literature), See. OBSCENE MATTER, libel, too obscene, mail, indictment, too obscene to set out, OBSCENE PAINTING, publication of, OBSCENE PICTURE, procuring, offense, OBSCENITY, alleging, indictment, question of fact. 1272 2378 2380 2168 2179 2182, 2184 2173 OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAYS, created by dedication, defined, highway as laid out, intent, nuisance, obstruction essential, public grounds, railroad obstructing, structures projecting, traveled in the past, turnpike, variance, in description. Defenses (Obstructing ways). See. Evidence (Obstructing ways). See. Indictment (Obstructing ways). See. OBSTRUCTING MAILS,, offense. 1310 1309 1316 1317 1319 1311 1313 1315 1314 1318 1312 1341 High- Hlgh- High- 2362 OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC JUSTICE, conspiracy for, 1204 OFFENSES, adultery, 1961 against two governments, jeop- ardy, - 2586 bribery, 1490, 1491 conspiracy to commit, 1202, 1228 extraditable, evidence of, 3434 identity of, jeopardy, 2589 illegal sale of liquor, 1476 insanity after committing, 2431 instruction as to included, 3248 mere presence at commission, effect, 2461 single offense, 421, 422 INDEX. 1007 IBeferences are to Sections.'] 3418 1082 2131 1512 2052 347 OFFENSES— Cow*in«e(i. trial on that named, extradi- tion, Compounding Offenses, See. Second Offense, See. OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, defined, OFFER TO MARRY, no defense in seduction, OFFERING A BRIBE, indictment for, OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, showing in hastardy, showing in rape case, OFFICE, Malfeasance in Office, See. OFFICER, assault by, 193 arrest by without warrant, 2642 arresting drunkard, 194 assisting, not assault, 196 breaking door to levy, trespass, 1052 bribery of, 1495 negligence of, 1499 who is, 1503 defending judge, not murder, 50 escape from, 2633 interfering with, riot, 1304 killing, when not murder, 35, 36 school treasurer as, 518 treating jury, offense, 1536 Public Officer, See. OFFICER DE FACTO, bribery, conspiracy to bribe, embezzlement by, perjury before, resisting, OLEOMARGARINE, illegally selling, power to regulate sale of, OPEN COURT, receiving verdict in, 1500 1218 517, 573 1607 1581 1846 1840 3369 OPINION, belief In death, dying declara- tions, 107, 108 court indicating error, 2860 court intimating instructions, 3246 false pretenses, 616, 617 intoxication, opinion on, 3175 medical expert, contradicting, 3178, 3179 murder case, 147 witnesses', 3038-3040 non-expert witness, 3080, 3175 medical expert, 3079 JuBOB, See. OPIUM DEN, indictment for keeping, 1139 OPIUM SMOKING, as disorderly conduct, 1111 ORAL, complaint in bastardy may be, 2026 ORAL ANSWERS, in contempt case, 1759 ORAL INSTRUCTION, given, when, 3238 ORAL ORDER, counting on, in contempt, 1783a ORAL STATEMENTS, as to dying declarations, 93, 94 ORDER, forgery of, void, 910, 911, 918 933 ORDER OF COMMITMENT, securing fine by, 3306 ORDER OF COURT, defendant unable to comply, no contempt, 1717 disobeying, contempt, 1684, 1690 void order, 1689 ORDINANCE, complaint for violation of, 2779 disorderly houses, 1152 1008 INDEX. [References are to Sections.l ORDINANCE— Continued. drunkenness, prohibiting, valid- ity, 1090 evidence of, 3151 jury trial for violation, 2507 sale of liquor, 1418, 1427 validity, testing by habeas cor- pus, 3449 ORGANIZATION OP GRAND JURY, Grand Juet, See. ORIGINAL PAPERS, change of venue, transmitting, 2824 OSTEOPATHY, practicing, no offense, OTHER ACTS, evidence of, adultery, bastardy, incest, obscene literature, seduction, OTHER ASSAULTS, evidence of, OTHER FELONY, evidence of. 1872 3140 1975, 1976 2040 2087 2189 2159 220 151 OTHER FORGED INSTRUMENTS, proof of, in forgery, 974 OTHER OFFENSES, evidence of. 150, 3137 larceny case. 465 embezzlement. 563 burglary. 743 conspiracy. 1244 obstructing highway, 1338 bribery. 1532 contempt case. 1761 abortion. 1934 house of ill fame, 2115 to prove intent. 3138 when incompetent. 3139 OTHER SALES, Sunday violations. 1371 liquor case. 1461, 1462 OTHER STOLEN PROPERTY, showing possession of, in lar- ceny, 461, 465 OTHER VIOLATIONS, incompetent, in perjury. 1656 OUTCRY, none in case of rape, effect, 333 OUT-HOUSE, arson. 833 OVERT ACT, to commit crime. 2420 conspiracy, 1189, 1226, 1242 murder. 39 OWNER, arson by, 842, 845 indictment. 851-853 burglary, consent. 711 consenting to offense, effect. 2428 disorderly house. 1133, 1140 embezzlement. 526 larceny of own property. 404 liquor case, proof of, 1456 taking in presence of, robbery. 766 variance as to. 3222 in larceny. 486 in trespass. 1066 in conspiracy. 1251 witness, in trespass. 1065 OWNER OF HOUSE, house of ill fame, guilt. 2099 OWNERSHIP, arson, 877 averments as to. 2734 -2737 burglary. 716 indictment. 726 variance, 755 cruelty to animals. 815 embezzlement, 550 false pretenses. 630 farm products. 389 illegal sale of liquors. 1404 larceny. 385, 387 alleging, 435, 437-440 proof, 478 possession is prima facie, 783 receiving stolen goods, 683 robbery, 767, 776 trespass, 1048 INDEX. 100& IBeferences are to SectionsJ] PAIN, evidence of, in rape, 327 absence of, in rape, 355 PANEL OF JURORS, exhausted, when, 2919 PANEL OF JURY, filling, 2915-2918 Jury, See. PARDON, contempt case, 1804 defense to second offense, 3294 PARENT, ahduction from, 234 conspiracy to procure child, 1212 imprisoning child, 283 kidnapping, 269 punishing children, assault, 198 taking child from, 275 2495 PARLIAMENT. power of, PARTIES, bastardy, compromise of, 2017 Intimacy of, 2037 change of venue by consent of, 2819 contempt, rights while in, 1726 correspondence, evidence in abortion, 1932 impeaching own witness, 3021 incest, other acts of, 2087 instructions explaining claims of, 325 preparing, 3240 negligence of, new trial, 3326 peremptory challenges, num- ber, 2935 PARTNER, defrauding partner, 1203 sale of liquor by, liability, 1390 PAST FACTS, false pretenses as to. €04 PEACE, breaking by abating nuisance, 1092^ labor on Sunday disturbing, 136L PECUNIARY GAIN, in larceny, 381 PEDDLERS, regulating, restricting com- merce, 2525 PENALTY, 3289 1254 761 3297 3291 3299, 3301 3303 3303 3304 3307 3302; 328$ 3291 3298: 3301 2628 age, element effecting, attempted conspiracy, burglary or larceny, costs follow judgment, court fixes punishment, cruel punishment, death penalty, place of execution, "quick with child," English common law, ex post facto, felony, defined, fine, extent of, not debt, imprisonment in mitigation, increasing, second ofCense, infamous punishment, jury fixing punishment, maximum punishment, misdemeanor, new, effect, punishment commences, when, 3305 punishment less than that fixed by law, 3295 sale of liquor, suit for, 1479 second offense, 3292, 3293 pardon a defense to, 3294 securing fine, 3306 sentence, changing, 3335 state reformatory punishment, 3290 unlawful punishment, 3295 Contempt, See. Sentence, See. 3299 3296 3292 3289 2550 PARTNERSHIP, PENDING CASE, fraternal society is not. Insolvency of, how shown. 527 646 perjury in. 1613, 1616 PASSING TITLE, when complete, in forgery, 929 PENETRATION, in. rape, in sodomy. 285 2288 hughes' c. l.— 64 1010 INDEX. PEOPLE, IReferences are to Sections.'] PERSON— CoMtiMwed. prosecutions in name of, 2522 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, how long continues, 2938 not exhausted, error, 2939 JuBT, See. PERJURY, affidavit, 1593 for continuance, 1594, 1610 making a writ, 1595 where not used, 1596 deposition as, 1598 attorney swearing falsely, 1597 belief, 1588 defective proceedings, 1591 defined, 1582 grand jury, before, 1592 Imperfect pleadings, 1591 inciting another, 1583 jurisdiction, state or federal, 1669 Icnowledge, 1584 land contest, 1600 materiality, degree, 1586 when matter material, 1589 question of law, 1590 matter immaterial, when, 1599, 1601, 1602 officer administering oath, 1603 authority of, 1604, 1605 unauthorized, 1606 de facto, 1607 how elected immaterial, 1667 privilege, failure to claim, 1608 result of case immaterial, 1609 subornation, 1584 venue, 1668 witness admitting, new trial, 3324 ■witness' credibility material, 1587 Defenses (Perjury), See. Evidence (Perjury), See. Indictment (Perjury), See. Vaeiance (Perjury), See. PERMISSION, as defense in trespass, 1055 PERMIT, effect in sale of liquors, 1400 PERSON, charging taking from, robbery, 782 conspiracy to injure, 1198 corporation is, 2524, 2540 defrauded, in forgery, 915, 916 jurisdiction of in contempt, 1723 larceny from, 398 number, in conspiracy, 1188 riot, single one, 1300 number in, 1306 sale of liquor, variance, 1472 PERSONAL PROPERTY, conspiracy to injure, 1200 false pretenses, must be actual, 582 obtained before, 614 describing, 635 larceny, worthless, 409 lawfully received, embezzlement of, 493 Desceiption, See. False Pretenses, See. Laeceny, See. PERSONATING ANOTHER, election law violation, 2335 PERSUASION, kidnapping by, PETIT LARCENY, as felony, PETITION, for habeas corpus, 271 708 3459 PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE, Change op Venue, See. PHARMACY, regulating practice of, 1865 failure of board to issue certifi- cate, 1878 PHOTOGRAPHIC PICTURES, evidence of, 3186 PHYSICAL OBJECTS, Evidence (Articles and Things), See. PHYSICIAN, examination by, in rape, 353 illegal sale of liquor by, 1393 proof that person is, 1890 tax for license, 2396 INDEX. 1011 PIGEONS, shooting, when not cruelty, 808 PIRACY, defined, 2410 felonious intent essential, 2411 jurisdiction on Potomac river, 2413 pirates, who are, 2412 PISTOL, assault with, 180, 186 Concealed Weapons, See. Weapons, See. PLACE, averring in indictment, 2724 burglary, variance as to, 754 gaming, variance, 2250 illegal sale of liquor, variance, 1471 non-existence of, proof, 648 IReferences are to Sections.J PLEADINGS, PLACE OF DEATH, in murder case. 163 PLACE OF IMPRISONMENT, how determined, 3337 PLACE OF TRIAL, constitutional law, 2528 PLAYING FOR DRINKS, not gaming, 2221 PLEA, before jury sworn, 2839 change of venue, before grant- ing, \ 2827 essential, 2830 guilty, dismissal after, 2619 effect of, 2838 court fixes punishment, 3291 nunc pro tunc, 2839 special, 2764-2766 striking from files, error, 2886 trial without, in bastardy, 2058 withdrawing, 2832 Abkaignmbnt, See. PLEA IN ABATEMENT, certainty required, 2771 defective, 2770 before plea to merits, 2877 perjury on imperfect, PLEDGED PROPERTY, embezzlement of, POINTING GUN, as an assault, loaded, manslaughter, POISON, abortion, administering as an assault, exposing for animals, POISONING, several by one act, varies from shooting, evidence of other instances. 1591 506 173 29 1918 170 817 2720 3232 149 POLICE OFFICER, examination, when prejudicial, 3072 POLICE POWER, defined, game and fish, sale of food, sale of liquor under, practice of medicine. Intoxicating Liquors, See. POLICE REGULATION, forming classes for, POLICY SHOP, when not gaming. 2501 1013 1840 1422 1863 2500 2251 POLL-BOOK, evidence, election law violation, 2353 POLLING JURY, right of, 3377 POLLS, jury, challenge to, 2923 POLYGAMY, no defense, in bigamy, 19SV POOL-SELLING, as gaming, 2198 1.012 INDEX. POOLS, indictment for selling, 2232 POSSESSION, adulterated food, no offense, 1850 burglary, 735, 736, 737 classes of, 402 concealed weapons, 1182 dead body, effect of, 2277, 2279 diseased meat, offense, 1857 forged checks, one offense, 2597 forgery, 925 effect of, 927 game, crime, 1029 impure milk, 1861 larceny, 385, 386 trick or fraud, 392 when not suflScient, 412 prima facie ownership, 783 receiving stolen goods, 676 robbery, 764 indictment, 777 servant's is master's, 400 smuggled goods, 2394 trespass, 1051 POSSESSION OP STOLEN GOODS, burglary, 734, 735 effect where recent, 460 evidence of larceny, 451, 454 exclusive, effect when not, 455 explanation of, "satisfactory," 453, 457 part only, 456 presumption from, 452 POSTAL CARD, threat on, offense, 2366 . POSTAL LAW VIOLATIONS, advertising counterfeit money, 2364 collecting agency sending paper,2365 dunning on postal card, 2366 ' federal statutes, 2361 fraudulent scheme, 2363 mails, obstructing, 2362 obscene language essential, 2367 postofflce, breaking into, 2368 variance, 2391 Dkfenses (Postal Law Viola- tions), See. Evidence (Postal Law Viola- tions), See. Indictment (Postal Law Viola- tions), See. [.References are to Sections.'] POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION, 1940 146 236S abortion, murder, POSTOFFICB breaking into, PRACTICE, challenge of juror, 2984 evidence in contempt, 1765 suspending attorney from, 2896 PREGNANCY, immaterial, in abortion, 1927 PREJUDICE, disqualifying juror, 2948 PREJUDICE OF INHABITANTS, change of venue, 2817 PREJUDICE OP JUDGE, change of venue, 2813 PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION, jeopardy, 2623 PRELIMINARY INQUIRY. as to insanity, 2432 PRELIMINARY PROOF, confessions. 3104 PREMEDITATED MALICE, murder, 61 not presumed, 26 Intent, See. Malice, See. PREMIUM, when offering not gaming, 2223 PREMISES, carrying weapons on one's own, 1163 describing in search warrant, 2637 disorderly house, describing, 1136 drinking on, 1378 proof, 1458 jury viewing, 3203 INDEX. 1013 IReferences are to S6ctions.2 PREPONDERANCE OF BVI- DENCE, "bastardy. 2031 tiontempt case. 1754 Insanity, 2435, 2436 not sufficient, when. 3088 Evidence, See. Presence of defendant, Vhen verdict received, 3370 PRESENCE OF WITNESSES, -waiving, 2875 PRESUMPTION, action of court regular, arraignment, ■bill of exceptions amended, chastity, 250, 1284, <30urt records, ■defendant in court, defendant's character good, errors injurious. Injury where jury separates, innocence, in libel, innocence of defendant, instructions on, suggesting error. Intent, in forgery, from act. Jurisdiction, knowledge of law, marriage, murder, possession of smuggled goods, premeditated malice, sanity presumed, statute constitutional, term of court held, Evidence, See. PRETENSES, False Pretenses, See. PREVIOUS ASSAULTS, evidence of, PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS, evidence of, PREVIOUS RELATIONS, evidence of, in murder, Showing in murder case. 3405 2834 3402 2147 3386 3404 3156 3387 2974 1284 2942 3278 3252 972 2464 2582 2322 1965 82 2394 26 2437 2496 2905 3124 3124 139 142 PRIMARY ELECTION, election, crime, voting at, when offense. 2301 2336 PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY, accessory, before fact, defined, 2473 principal, when, 2477, 2716 after fact, 2478 acquittal of principal acquits ac- cessory, 2484 jeopardy, 2604 aiding in misdemeanors, -2479 convicted of manslaughter, de- fense in murder, 37 defendant principal and acces- sory, 2485 intent of, 2482 jointly indicting, 2480 mere presence, 2474 record of conviction, 2481 2475 2476 2476a 3214 2483 515 resisting officer, unknown principal, advising, aiding by signs, variance, wife not accessory, agent's acts, liability for. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, clerk selling liquor, 2397 false pretenses by agent, 586 liability where liquor sales made, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1434 nuisance, liability for, 1900 sale of impure food by, 1842 variance, 3225 PRISONER, burning prison, arson, PRIVATE HOUSE, disorderly conduct in. PRIVATE PERSON, arrest by, PRIVILEGE, extradition, trial on, witness claiming. 847 1135 2651 3424, 3425 3420 1705, 1706 PRIVILEGE FROM TESTIFYING, in abortion, 1941 PRIVILEGE OF WITNESS, In gaming. Witnesses, See. 2254 1014 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.^ PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS, -when not, 2893 PRIZE, when offering not gaming, 2223 PRIZE BOXES, gaming, 2200 PRIZE-FIGHTING, as assault, PROBABLE RESULT, in conspiracy, PROCEDURE, law of, how construed, statute repealed. 176 1236 2546 2885 PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE, Arrests, See. PROCEEDINGS OF COURT, attacking in contempt case, 1710 PROCESS, describing, in resisting officer, 1572, 1573 PROFANE LANGUAGE, disorderly conduct, 1097 Blasphemy, See. PROFANITY, as public nuisance, 1911 PROMISE, compounding offense, 1807 confession secured by, 3096 false pretenses based on, 606 PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, implied from language, 2141 seduction, 2121 future, 2140 relying on, 2162 Seduction, See. PROMISSORY NOTE, bribe, validity, 1507 compounding offense, 1811 PROMISSORY NOTE— ConMMwed. embezzlement of, 503 false pretenses, 585 forgery, statute, 912, 913 pretense as to renewing, 623 PROOF, challenge to array, 2920 confession, preliminary, 3104 highway, 1336 Evidence, See. Variance, See. PROPERTY, contempt in failing to turn over, 1687, 1718, 171» liquor license is not, 1415 right of owner to recover, as- sault, 19» PROPERTY FOUND, larceny of, 423 PROPERTY RIGHTS, destruction of certain animals, 2511 statutes curtailing, constitution- ality, 2510 PROPRIETARY MEDICINES, revenue tax on, 2398 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, attending grand jury, 2692 PROSECUTION, appealing, in contempt case, 1799 instructions for, few, 3242 name of people, 2522 postal law violations, where commenced, 2387 private counsel to assist, 2892 sustaining witness, 3160 PROSECUTOR, effect where he. knows that pre- tenses are false, 612 PROSECUTOR'S NAME, indorsing, indictment in mali- cious mischief, 824 PROSECUTRIX, impeaching, in seduction, in rape, 2153 342 INDEX. 1015 [References are PROSECUTRIX IN RAPE, her evidence sufficient, 356 PROSTITUTE, arrest without warrant, 2648 proving that woman is, 2113 showing daughter to be, in in- cest, 2090 House of III Fame, See. PROSTITUTION, defined, 235 distinguished from concubin- age, 247 DisosDERLY House, See. House of III Fame, See. PROVOCATION, defense, in libel, murder, defense, words only, Self-Defense, See. 1270 10 34 38 PROVOKING QUARREL, self-defense. 2444 PUBLIC, annoying, nuisance. 1898 PUBLIC BUILDING, owner, arson, 853a PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, forgery of, 903 PUBLIC FUNDS, failure to turn over, 1551 PUBLIC GROUNDS, obstructing, 1313 PUBLIC HIGHWAY, Highway, See. PUBLIC INTEREST, banking affected with, 2512 PUBLIC JUSTICE, conspiracy to obstruct, 1204 to Sections.'] PUBLIC NUISANCE, agent liable with principal, 1909 annoying public, 1897 defined, 1891 disorderly house, 1893 injurious factory, 1892 obstructing highways, 1894 obstructing water-course, 1895 poisoning water-course, 189ft. polluting rivers, 1895 power to suppress, 1914 prlvate person abating, 1913 public, more than one, 1899 public swearing, 1897 Defenses (Public Nuisance), See. Indictment (Public Nuisance), See. PUBLIC OFFICER, administering oath, in perjury, 1603-1606 arrest by, breaking doors, 2653 assault on, arrest, 2640 assaulting, effect of, 1567 breach of peace in presence of, 2644 carrying weapon, 1170 charge of jury, 2968, 2969 clerk as, 1549 conspiracy to bribe, 121S debtor. Is not, but custodian, 529 election, in perjury, 1620, 1667 embezzlement by, 516, 517, 523 by assistant, 523 defense by, 538 Indictment, averments, 555 interfering with, as a contempt, 1681 killing, to prevent escape, 2654 unlawful arrest, 2655 offense In presence of, arrest, 2643 officer de facto, bribery, 1500 negligence in allowing pris- oner to escape, 1819 personating, false pretenses, 595 proving, in resisting officer, 1580 refusing to do duty at election, 2313-2315 resisting, persons assisting, 1579 accessory, 2475 stealing goods from, as offense, 1568 warrant protects, 2634 showing before arrest, 2656 who are, 520, 1549 Election Officeb, See. Malfeasance in Office, See. Resisting Officeb, See. 1016 INDEX. IBeferences ore to Sections."] PUBLIC PLACE, gaming in, 'what is, indictment, evidence to show, intoxication in, 2209 2210-2213 2236 2244 1089 PUBLIC RECORDS, to prove marriage, in bigamy, 2005 PUBLIC SWEARING, nuisance, PUBLICATION, libel, manner of, proof, others competent, presence of several, obseen* painting, Libel, See. 1897 1268 1274 1285 1289 1295 2168, 2169 PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPER, false pretenses by, 592 PUNISHMENT, commences when, 3305 jury fixes, when, 3296 plea of guilty, court fixes, 3291 Contempt, See. Penalty, See. Sentence, See. Q QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS, JuBT, See. QUALITY, concealing, false pretenses, 593 QUARRELS, j evidence of, in murder, 139| provoking, self-defense, 2444 QUASHING INDICTMENT, Motion to Quash, See. QUESTIONS, expert witness, 3074 Impeaching, indefinite, 2154 ■witness may refuse to answer, when. 3042 QUESTIONS OF FACT, deadly weapon, obscenity as, QUESTIONS OF LAW, "cooling time," in murder, construction, materiality, in perjury, witness' privilege, IS8 2173 4 2532 1590 1708 R RAFFLING, as gaming, RAILROAD, obstructing highway, 1315 RAILROAD COMPANY, in indictment for burglary. 722 RAILROAD OFFENSE, venue, proof, 3i&5 RAILROAD TICKET, larceny, '417 restricting sale of, 2513 RAPE, age, legislation as to, 297 age of female, 290 aiding and assisting, 291 asleep, connection when, 286 assault with intent included, 292-294, 318 attempt, 295 consent not material, 290 counts in joined with incest, 2082 defense to incest, 2095 definition, 285 drugging woman, 287 fear and fraud, 288 idiot, 289 indecent liberties with child, 296 instruction, 295 other acts of, 346 seduction, variance, 2T66 Defenses (Rape), See. Evidence (Rape), See. Indictment (Rape), See. READING FROM LAW BOOKS, right of counsel, 2871 INDEX. 1017 [.References are to Sections.} REAL ESTATE, claiming to own, false pre- tenses, 609 malicious mischief, 810 Feaudulent Conveyances, See. Trespass, See. REASONABLE DOUBT, court of review, 2492 defined, 2488, 3263 doubt as to each link of evi- dence, 2490 facts, applied to those only, 2491 instructions, 2493, 2494, 3263 jury's duty, each juror to be convinced, 2486 what is required of jury, 2487 law, not applicable to, 2491 "moral certainty," 2489 REASONS. for new trial. 3310 REBUTTAL, abandonment of wife, 1077, 1078 defendant's character. 3158 disotetion of court. 3191 evidence of flight, 3127 false pretenses. 651 liquor case, 1466 Evidence, See. RECALLING JURY, after discharge, 2975 RECEIVER, as agent, 511 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, defenses in, 668, 669, 670 definition, 665 holding for reward, 666 larceny distinguished from, 482, 667 value, 690 venue, 689 verdict, . 690, 691 Defenses (Receiving Stolen Goods), See. Evidence (Receiving Stolen Goods), See. Indictment (Receiving Stolen Goods), See. Variance (Receiving Stolen ■ Goods), See. RECESS OF COURT, contempt at, 1709 RECITALS, effect of in judgment, 3346 RECKLESSNESS, intent compared to, 2469 RECOGNIZANCE, after change of venue, 2829 RECOLLECTION, impeaching witness, effect, 3027 RECORD, amendments, may be made, 3381 changes at future term, 3382 memorial paper to amend by, 3383 notice of intention to amend, 3384 to indictment or affidavit, 3385 best evidence, document, 3143 bill of exceptions, at common law, 3395 when unnecessary, 3396 proceedings preserved by, 3397 by stipulation, 3398 when to be signed, 3399 time for filing, statute fixing, 3400 certificate showing evidence, 3401 amendment of, 3402, 3403 defendant presumed in court, 3404 action of court presumed reg- ular, 3405 certiorari, 3412 contradicting by affidavit, 3386 errors, presumed injurious, 3388 prisoner shackled In court, 3389 evidence prejudicial and Ir- relevant, 3390 must be material, 3387 comment on defendant's fail- ure to testify, 3391 refusing counsel to talk -with witnesses, 3392 reversal on facts, by court of review, 3393 general assignment of errors, 3394 evidence, in perjury, 1653 former conviction, 3147 foreign, 3149 impaneling of grand jury, 2675 impeaching in habeas corpus, 3463 indictment, when is, 2699 jurisdictional facts, 2582 proof of highway by, 1337 1018 INDEX. [References are to 8ections.'\ RECORD— ConHretted. proof of marriage by, 1967 proof by copy, 3149 remittitur, 3412 swearing of jury, 2965 writ of error, at common law, 3406 escaped prisoner not entitled to, 3407 from what court, 3408 when will be dismissed, 3409 death abates, 3410 costs in prosecuting, 3411 RECORD OF CONVICTION, principal's, accessory's case, 2481 REFUSAL OP AFFIDAVITS, change of venue, effect of, 2814 REFUSING INSTRUCTIONS, > effect of, 3280 REGISTRATION, false one, election law violation, 2338, 2340 RELATIONSHIP, ground for challenging juror, 2927 incest, 2085 RELIGIOUS BELIEF, defense, in bigamy, 1987 work on Sunday, 1362 RELIGIOUS MEETING, indictment for disturbing, 1095 Sunday school, 1110 disturbing, 1084, 1091 what amounts to, 1109 RELIGIOUS TEST, competency of witness, 3004 REMARKS, Trtat. and Incidents, See. REMEDY, Habeas Corpus, See. REMITTITUR, effect of, 3412 REPEAL, Statutes, See. REPEATING INSTRUCTIONS, practice as to, 3260' Instbuctions, See. REPUGNANCY, effect of between statutes, 2551 REPUTABLE PERSONS, affidavits of, change of venue, 28tl REPUTATION, chastity. 2155 impeaching. 2152 seduction. 2146 deceased's, in murder. 133 defendant's, in incest. 2072 disorderly house. 1145 inmates. 1146 frequenters of gaming house. 2246 house of ill fame. 2102, 2112, 2116 2117 inmates of house of ill fame. 2112 impeachment by showing. 3065 insanity, effect of, 3167 marriage by, proof, 1966 relationship in incest. 2085 specific acts, 3159 witness, how impeached. 3026 REQUEST, conspiracy, departure from. 1195 REQUISITION, Extradition, See. RES GESTAE, abortion, deceased's statements, 1935 declarations, 3110, 3111 definition, 3111 drunkenness, 2426 dying declarations. 111, 112, 113 restricting, 97 rape, complaint of female, 326 Evidence, See. RESCUE, Escape and Rescue, See. RESIDENCE, abandonment of wife, indict- ment, 1075 arson, 859 RESISTANCE, in rape. 336 INDEX. 1019 [References are to Sections.^ RESISTING OFFICER, accessory, 2475 essential elements, 1559 special officer included, 1560 Evidence (Resisting Officer), See. Indictment (Resisting Officer), See. RESORT, disorderly house, RESULT, of conspiracy, 1121 1193, 1194 RETREAT, self-defense, when unnecessary, 2446 RETURN OF PROPERTY, as defense to embezzlement, 539 REVENUE LAW VIOLATIONS, federal statutes, 2392 physician must pay tax, 2396 possession of smuggled goods, 2394 smuggling and recieivlng, 2393 unlading goods, 2395 Defenses (Revenue Law Viola- tions), See. Indictment (Revenue Law Viola- tions), See. REVENUE STAMPS, as evidence in liquor case, 1465 REVERSAL, evidence, when, 3327 facts, by court of review, 3393 removes jeopardy, ' 2591 sentence, for proper, 3343 where void, 3344 REVIEW, contempt case, 1802 when none, 1796 ruling on competency of juror, 2982. 2983 REVOLVER, Concealed Weapons, See. Weapons, See. REWARD, concealing property for, lar- ceny, 391, 666 RIGHT AND WRONG, test of, in insanity, 2438 RIGHTS, Trial and Incidents (Waiving Rights), See. RIOT, assault, conviction, bar, 2611 assault and battery included, 1298 defined, 1297 Defense (Riot), See. Evidence (Riot), See. Indictment (Riot), See. RIOTER, not liable for accidental death, 56 RIVERS, polluting, nuisance. 1895 ROAD, defense that not highway, ob- structing highway, 1320, 1322 Highway, See. ROBBERY, assault and battery included, 769 burglary, 753 consenting to, conspiracy, 1209 defendant's possession, essential, 764 definition, 763, 779 degrees, 781 killing, murder, 6 larceny included, 768 ownership, 767 presence of owner, 766 taking one's own, not, 2455 violence not used, 765 Defense (Robbery), See. Evidence (Robbery), See. Indictment (Robbery), See. ROOM, renter, burglary of, 713 RULE, governing new trial, 3308 Contempt, See. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, Construction, Sfie. 1020 INDEX. iBeferences are to SectionsJ] SANITY, presumed, Insanity, See. 2437 SALE, dead body, 2276 false pretenses In, 593 intoxicating liquor, 138D, 1381 to whom made, 1402 when made, 1468 SALOONS, disorderly house, minors frequenting, 1120 1428 SCANDALS, liewspaper publishing, o&ense, 2174 SCAR, compelling defendant to exhibit, 3161 SCHOOL, disturbing, 1096 prohibiting sale of liquor near, 1417 SCHOOL-HOUSE, arson, public place, gaming, SCHOOL TREASURER, embezzlement by. 836, 863 2211 518 SCIENTER, indictment for false pretenses, 633 SCIENTIFIC BOOKS, incompetent evidence, 3179 SEALED VERDICT, agreement as to. 3385 SEARCH FOR STOLEN GOODS, evidence of, 680 SEARCH WARRANT, basis for, 2635 describing premises, 2637 search and seizure, 2636 unreasonable search, 2638 SEAS, indictment for murder on, SECOND DEGREE, conviction of, jeopardy, murder, Degbees in Mukdeb, See. 70 2601 24 SECOND-HAND GOODS, dealer in receiving stolen goods, 668 SECOND MARRIAGE, bigamy, alleging. 1985 199'3 SECOND OFFENSE, increasing penalty, 2628, 3292 pardon, defense to, 3294 punishment on, 3293 validity of statutes as to, 2554 SECONDARY EVIDENCE, of insuraiice policy, in arson, 878 SECRECY, as element of larceny, 378 SECRET SOCIETY, punishment by, assault, 177 SEDUCTION, character of female, 2124 chaste character prior to seduc- tion, 2149 conspiracy to commit, 1199 deception, 2122 defined, 2120 female confided to one's care, 2128 "illicit connection" means sexual intercourse, 2125 promise of marriage, 2121 reformation, after, 2126 unmarried female essential, 2123 virtuous woman, 2127 Defenses (Seduction), See. Evidence (Seduction), See. Indictment (Seduction), See. SEIZURE, unlawful, evidence. 3134 INDEX. IO2I1 SELF-DEFENSE, assault. 201 degree of proof, 222 burden of proof, 85, 3268 carrying weapon for, 1168 Instruction on. 3267 Defenses (Generally) , See. Defenses (Murder), See. SENTENCE, [References are to Sections.'i SERIES OF ACTS, as one transaction, SERVANT, guilty of burglary. alternative improper, 3342 changing penalty, 3335 cumulative, 3340 defendant's, presence, 3329, 3331 absconding before verdict, 3330 asking before, 3332 several defendants, 3345 place of imprisonment, 3337 reversal for proper sentence, 3343 reversal for void sentence, 3344 several counts, 3336, 3337 on some, 3338 separate sentence, 3339 suspended indefinitely, jurisdic- tion, 2568 term of court, 2569 after, 2570 term abolished, 2571 what one, 3333 future term, 3334 valid in part, 3341 validity of judgment, 3346 SENTENCE IN CONTEMPT, Contempt, See. SEPARATE TRIAL, discretionary, 2840 result if allowed. 2842 when should be allowed, 2841 SEPARATION OF JURY, during trial, 2971 effect of, 2972, 2974 SEPULTURE VIOLATION, control and regulation of burials, defense, possession merely, 2277 definition, 2272 neglect to bury decently, 2273 removal of body, offense, 2275 sale of body, 2276 Indictment ( Sepulture Viola- tion), See. 566 709 SERVICE OF NOTICE, in contempt, 1743, 1744 SETTLEMENT, when not a bar, in bastardy, 2018 SEVEN YEARS' ABSENCE, defense, in bigamy, 1991 SEVERAL DEFENDANTS, verdict as to some, 3366 SEX OF ANIMALS, variance, 3233 SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. abduction for, 242 bastardy, 2040. 2041» 2042 time of, 2050 bigamy, 1980 enticing away for, 240, 241 previous, defense in rape, 298, 339-341 rape, when, 285 seduction, 2129 promise to marry, 2142 Adttltery, See. Rape, See. Seduction, See. SHED, arson, 834 SHERIFF, calling by-standers on jury, 2916 posse assisting to make arrest, 2650 special bailiff acting in place of, 2918 SHOOTING, poisoning varies from, SHOOTING RECKLESSLY, murder, SHOP, arson, larceny from, 3232 840 384 1022 INDEX. SICKNESS, juror discharged for, 2990 trial stopped by, jeopardy, 2624 SIGNATURE, to bill of exceptions, 3399 SIGNS, aiding by, accessory, 2476a deaf mute testifying by, 3005 SILENCE OF DEFENDANT, evidence of, 3128, 3129 explaining, 3130 SINGING SCHOOL, disturbing, 1085 SINGLE OFFENSE, splitting, jeopardy, 2612 SLANDER, against judge, contempt, 1692 Libel, See. SLANDEROUS WORDS, defense in disorderly conduct, 1093 in libel, 1287 proving others, 1296 SLOT MACHINE, keeping, gaming, 2208, 2219, 2229 IBeferences are to Sections.'] SOBOMY— Continued. SMUGGLED GOODS, possession of, effect, receiving, misdemeanor, SMUGGLING, misdemeanor. 2394 2393 2393 SOCIAL CLUB, illegal sale of liquor by, 1394, 1395 open on Sunday, 1349 SOCIETY, evidence of trial by, in libel, 1292 SODOMY, "assault," eliminated by con- sent, 2292 attempt under statute, 2291 child of tender years, consent, 2289 defined, 2286 emission essential, common law, 2288 evidence, 2297 mouth, using, 2290 offense with beast not included, 2287 Defense (Sodomy), See. Indictment (Sodomy), See. SOLICITATIONS, in abduction, SOLICITING A BRIBE, as offenscj SPECIAL BAILIFF, to fill panel of jurors, SPECIAL OFFICER, resisting, SPECIAL PLEA, 233 1489 2918 1560 2433 insanity, indictment) special plea to, 2764-2766 trial on, 2887 SPECIAL VERDICT, facts essential, when proper, SPECULATING ON MARKETS, gaming, statutes against, SPITTING IN FACE, as battery, SPLITTING OFFENSES, effect on jeopardy, SPORTS, place open for on Sunday, STABLE, building, arson, STACK OF STRAW, as subject of arson, 3348 3347 2205 2502 168 850 1344 862 848 INDEX. 1023 [.References are to Sections.^ STANDING MUTE, STATVTE— Continued. arraignment, effect of, 2836 STATE, conviction in wrong one, jeop- ardy, 2607 jurisdiction, conflict of, 2578 power to regulate liquor sales, 1420 private counsel for, 2892 prohibiting Importation of liq- uor, 1425 treason against, 2409 Ventte, See. STATE COURT, jurisdiction, perjury, habeas corpus, STATE LAWS, congress adopting, STATE REFORMATORY, minors punished in, STATE TREASURER, embezzlement by. 2575-2579 1669 3441 2697 3290 522 STATE'S ATTORNEY, attending grand jury, 2692 information filed by, 2777 Peosecuting Attoenet, See. STATEMENTS, defendant's, concealed weapons, 1183 female^, in seduction, 2144 mother's, showing in bastardy, 2048 EvEDENCE (Confessions), See. STATING OFFENSE, in disorderly conduct. 1104 STATUTE, abandonment of wife, 1067 abortion, object of, 1915 admitted facts, continuance, 2804 age, in rape, 297 bill of exceptions, 3400 butter and cheese factory regu- lation, 2555 construction, two meanings, 2542 rule of, 2537 embezzlement, as larceny, 495 ex post facto, 3302 habeas corpus to test validity, 3448 limit for trial, 3451 indeterminate sentence law, 2553 instructions in words of, 160, 3284 jurisdiction where invalid, 2566 new statute repeals old, 2552 opinion of juror, effect, 2953 peremptory challenges allowed by, 2933 presumed constitutional, 2496 partly valid, 2497 privilege of witness, 3046 proving validity of, 2557 repeal, common law, 2544 by implication not favored, 2547 general law not repealed, 2548 by amendatory act, 2549 in part, new penalty, 2550 when repugnant, 2551 repealed, defense of, 2460 rule of evidence by, 1447 sale of liquor, 1418 discrimination in, 1424 second offense, 2554 trade-marks, validity of, 2556 CoNSTEUCTioN, See. Stattjtoey Woeds, See. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, bigamy, 2009 conspiracy. 1245 defense of. 2462 offense barred by. 2732 when begins. 2763 Defenses, See. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, dram-shop act, 1412 CoNSTBTjCTioiir, See. STATUTORY ELEMENT, in burglary indictment, 730 STATUTORY FORM, indictment, confidence game, 663 STATUTORY WORDS, indictment, when not sufficient, 2704, 2705 when sufficient, 2708 words equivalent to, 2710 intent in, 2740 ^024 INDEX. IReferences are to Sections.'] STATUTORY WORDS— Continued. In Specific Offenses. abandonment of wife, 1074 abduction, 249 adultery. 1958 assault. 202 blackmail. 1008 blasphemy. 2284 bribery. 1509 disorderly conduct. 1099 disorderly house. 1136 election law violation. 2330 embezzlement. 546 false pretenses. 626 forgery. 938 gaming. 2224 house of ill fame. 2107 illegal sale of liquor. 1430 Ubel, 1281 lottery. 2265 obscene literature. 2183 obstructing highway, 1328 resisting oflScer, 1571 revenue law violation. 2404, 2405 seduction, 2134 sepulture violation. 2278 sodomy. 2294 Indictment, See. STAY OP EXECUTION, in murder case^ 164 STEALING, LiABCENY, See. STENOGRAPHER, attending grand jury, 2693 STENOGRAPHER'S NOTES, as evidence, in perjury, 1654 STIPULATION, bill of exceptions by, 3398 STOLEN GOODS, evidence of other, in receiving stolen goods, 681 evidence to identify, 747 possession, burglary, 734, 736, 737 evidence, 738 Receiving Stolen Goods, See. STOLEN PROPERTY, Possession of Stolen Prop- EETT, See. STONE, picking up, not assault, 183 STOPPING TRAIN. as offense, 132^ STORE, arson, 840 burglary, 705 STORE-HOUSE, burglary, 705 dwelling, burglary, 703 larceny, 384 STRAY ANIMAL, larceny of, 379 STREET-WALKERS, arrest without warrant, 2648 STRICT CONSTRUCTION, contempt case, 1677 dram-shop act, 1412 law of procedure, 2546 Constbtjctiow, See. STRIKES, conspiracy, 1210 ordering, as contempt of court, 1703 STUFFING BALLOT-BOX, offense, 2316 SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, charging, 1646, 1648 indictment defective, 1649 what essential in, 1584 SUBPENAS, grand jury, 268S witness disobeying, contempt, 1700 SUICIDE, defense, 2454 evidence of, in murder, 57 rebutting theory of, 3192 SUMMARY OP EVIDENCE, in instructions, 3254 SUNDAY, receiving verdict on, 3368 INDEX. 1«2& IReferencea are tO' SecWoMS'i] StJNDAY-SCHOOLj whether is religious worship, 1110 SUNDAY VIOLATIONS, harher shops, 1350 hase-ball included, 1346 business place open on, 1345 excursions on Sunday, 1351 jurisdiction, 1372 several violations, one offense, 1343 social club, 1349 sports on, 1344 Sunday laws constitutional, 1342 theatre on Sunday, 1347 tippling house open, 1348 Defenses (Sunday Violations), See. BviDEHCB (Sunday Violations), See. Indictment (Sunday Violations), See: SUPERIOR TITLE, as defense in trespass, SURETY, justifying falsely, contempt, when liable on bail, SURGEON, proof that person acted as, SUIIPLUS AVERMENTS, in disorderly house, SURPLUSAGE, indictment, burglary, disorderly house, illegal sale of liquor, verdict, effect of, SUSPICION, none against alibi, SWEARING, nuisance, gWEARING FALSELY, as murder, SWEARING JURY, JuET, See. hughes' c. l. — 65 1058 1698 2663 1890 1150 205, 721 722 1137 1444 3364 2416 1897 16 SWINDLING, confidence game as, . 6&2 False Peetense, See. TAMPERING' Wll^U' Wif fJESS, bribing witness to absent him- self, 1833 comifioh law offense, . 1832 intimidating witness after suit ended, 1834 witness not subpehaed not ma- terial, 1835 TAX, dogs, authority to levy, 2516 physician must pay, when, 2396 TEACHER, inflicting punishment, not as- sault, TELEGRAM, arrest on^ extradition, best evidence as to, TENANT, arson, keeping disorderly houS^; larceny by, owner, burglary; TENT, as house of ill fame. 197 2649 3145 846 1140 414 713 2101 TERMS OF COURT, adjourned, 2904 amendments at future, 3382 criminal cases for certain one, 2903 presumed held, 2905 sentence at what one, 2569-25tl, 3333, 3334 TERRIFYING, not essential, in riot. TERRITORY, lottery in, trial by jury in. 1299 2258 2991 TESTIMONY, 1 "each link," instruction as to, 3264 Evidence, See. Witnesses, See. 1026 INDEX. [.References are to Sections. 2 THEATER, disorderly house, open on Sunday, 1141 1347 THEORY, instructions supporting, 3249 THIEF, acquittal, effect of on receiving stolen goods, 669 Labcent, See. THINGS OP VALUE, gaming for, 2204 THIRD PERSON, causing death, niurder, 55 declarations of, 3116 killing, murder, 8 shooting, as an assault, 178 statements of, in bastardy, 2034 threats of, defense in murder, 40 THREATENING LETTER, i-o^lecting debt by, blackmail, 1002 THREATS, abduction committed by, 230 acquiescence, effect of, 1006 arson, 885, 886 blackmail, must have influence, 1005 confessions by, 3099 deceased's, 131, 3169, 3170 defendant's, 130, 3168 ■defense in murder, 39, 40 evidence of motive, 141 lalse imprisonment by, 282 Icidnapping by, 267 mayhem, 374 robbery, 772 self-defense, 2447 how affected by, 2449 Blackmail, See. TIMBER, taking, trespass. 1062, 1064 TIME, averment of, in indictment, 2725 bastardy, 2050 bill of exceptions, statute fixing, 3400 challenge for cause, 2929 date, 2730, 2731 TIME— Continued. illegal sale of liquor, 1440 variance, 1473, 1474 jeopardy attaches, when, 2587 motion for new trial to be filed, when, 3312 perjury, 1662, 1666 punishment commences, when, 3305 seduction, 2137 trial, continuance to prepare for, 2799, 2800 variance as to, 155 Cooling Time, See. TIME AND PLACE, charging, house of ill fame, 2109 TIPPLING HOUSE, Sunday violations, evidence, 1348, 1369 TITLE, forcible entry and detainer, 1039 malicious mischief, 828 not passing, no false pretense, 619 parting with, false pretenses, 581 trespass, effect, 1048 claim of superior, 1058 TITLE OP ACT, expressing subject, one subject embraced, rule for construing. 2498 2499 2534 TOOLS, as evidence, in forgery. Burglar's Tools, See. 965 TRADE-MARKS, act to protect, validity, forgery. 2556 937 TRAIN, stopping, as offense, 1323 TRAVELER, may carry concealed weapons, 1165 TREASON, defined, 2408 against federal and state govern- ments, 2409 TREASURER, when not embezzler, 535 INDEX. 1027 TREATING, {.References are to Sections.'] TRIAL — Continued. not violation of liquor law, 1401 TREATY, extradition, forgery, offense not mentioned. Extradition, See. TREES, cutting, malicious mischief, TRESPASS, defined, destroying fences, force or demonstration, officer breaking door to levy, ownership, premises, possession or control, willfulness. Defense (Trespass), See. Indictment (Trespass), See. TRESPASSER, removing, not assault, removing property of,_ when killing is murder, TRESPASSING ANIMALS, killing or wounding, TRIAL, absence of defendant, contempt case, 1766 additional witnesses, calling at, 3047 argument and remarks, improper remarks by court, 2859 court indicating opinion, 2860 improper, 2861 calling defendant scoundrel, 2862 when not prejudicial, 2863 court should confine, 2864 court should not deny, 2865 waiving, 2866 on "good time," objectionable, 2867 objecting to improper, 2868 limiting, 2869 remarks on defendant's con- duct, 2870 reading from law books, 2871 arraignment and plea, 2839 bastardy, no plea, 2058 continuance to prepare for, 2799, 2800 3423 3421 810 1046 1047 1050 1052 1048 1051 1049 200 809 13 794 county of offense, waiver of, 2820 delayed, habeas corpus, 3450-3452 demand for, habeas corpus, 3454 dismissal after commencement of, 2618 judge leaving bench during, 2902 jury separating during, 2971 limit of time for, 3450 statutory, 3451 three full terms, 3452 objections and exceptions, bill of exceptions essential, 2847 motion to quash, 2848 when to be made, 2849 too general, 2850 to be specific, 2851 none taken, irregularity waived, 2852 ruling on rejected evidence, 2853 evidence competent as to one, but not as to others, 2854 to instructions, too general, 2855 when to take to instructions, 2856 to instructions, to be specific, 2857 instruction in capital case, 2858 offense named, extradition, 3418 place of, constitutional law, 2528 plea nunc pro tunc, 2839 practice, plea in abatement be- fore merits, 2877 lost indictment, copy, 2878 hill of particulars, when, 2879 demurrer to evidence, 2880 demurrer to indictment, 2881 striking cause from docket, 2882 election as to courts, 2883 admitting further evidence, 2884 law of procedure, 2885 striking plea from files, error, 2886 special plea and general issue, 2887 plea of former acquittal, 2888 failure to file briefs in court of review, 2889 presence of defendant, essential, 2843 when not essential, 2844 defendant absconding during trial, 2845 trial where two indictments, 2846 result of, perjury, 1615 separate trial, discretionary, 2840 when should be allowed, 2841 result if allowed, 2842 sickness stopping, jeopardy, 2624 1028 INBEX. [.References are to Sections.} TRIAL — Continued. waiving rights, defendant may waive rights, 2872 copy of Indictment, 2873 list of witnesses, 2873 waiving jury, 2874 presence of witnesses, 2875 constitutional rights, 2876 New Tkial, See. TRIAL BY JURY. in territories, waiver. 2991 2979, 2980 TRICK, possession hy, larceny, taking by, not robbery. 392 770 TRUST, breach of, not larceny. 415 TRUSTEE, indictment for embezzlement, 558 TRUTH, as defense in libel. 1263 TRUTH OP ACCUSATION, as defense in blackmail, 1003 TURNPIKE, obstructing. 1312 TWO GOVERNMENTS, same act offense against, 2586 U UNBORN CHILD, injuring, murder, UNCERTAINTY, dying declaration, ■verdict, effect of. 102 3374 UNCHASTE CHARACTER. mere improprieties InsuflScient, 2150 UNCHASTITY, abduction, effect of after, 259, 260 adultery, 1975 UNCHASTITY— ContiMMed. defense in rape, 299, 33S evidence of. 258 seduction. 2132 specific acts, 2145 Chastity, See. UNITED STATES, treason against, 2408, 2409 UNITED STATES LICENSE, effect of in liquor case, 1464 UNITED STATES MAILS, Postal Law Violations, See. UNKNOWN PRINCIPAL, advising, 2476 UNLAWFUL ACT, doing, murder, 11 UNLAWFUL ARREST, extradition, immaterial, 3419 jurisdiction,, ' 2574 killing officer attempting, 2655 Aerest,' See. UNLAWFUL BEATING, as battery. 169 UNLAWFUL GRAND JURY, defined, 2670 objection to, 2674 UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, parting with property for, false pretenses, 624 UNMARRIED FEMALE, seduction of, 2123 UNREASONABLE SEARCH. Illegal, 2638 USE, to prove highway, 1335 USER, of highway, disproving, 1321 INDEX. 1029 UTTERING, in forgery, 906, 907 , 908 what is not. 930 to whom. 947 how forged Immaterial, 962 evidence. 978 V VAGRANCY, arrest without warrant, 2647 defined. 1090a disorderly conduct. 1090a VA.LUB, aggregating values, 383, 673 arson, 868 hribery. 1525 burglary. 726 , 742 describing. 745 €mbezzlement. 504 , 577 false pretenses. 585 larceny, 382, 383 , 416 indictment. 43S , 434 evidence of. 475 verdict stating, 491 receiving stolen goods, 67S , 690 robbery. 776, 786 VARIANCE, Generally. available, when, 3236 color. 3227 committing and attempt to con - mit. 3235 day or night. 3227 defined. 3198 description of property. 3217 descriptive averments. 3226 grand jury knew. 3199 husband or wife owner. 3219 Injured person unknown. 3215 intent, different. 3231 money, description, 3228, 3229 name of corporation. 3218 name of deceased. 3220 name of defendant, 3220 owner of property. 3222 person injured, 3215, 3216 pistol or gun, 3232 poisoning, shooting, 3232 principal and accessory. 3214 principal and agent. 3225 principal unknown, 3214 "selling," "giving," 3224 series of numbers. 3234 sex of animals, 3233 striking or other means, 3230 1946 893 3200 2007 1533 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 664 IBeferences are to Sections.'i YARIAtiCK— Continued. In Specific Offenses. abortion, arson, assault, 223-227, bigamy, bribery, burglary, as to description, force or fraud, larceny or robbery, location, "gin-house" or "store- house," on ownership, day or night, 756, breaking into or out, as to name, confidence game, conspiracy, person or public, 1246 with one or two, 1247 inflicting injury, 1248 one of several acts su£Bcient, 1249 different act, , 1250 as to owner, 1251 disorderly conduct, 1109 embezzlement, larceny not em- bezzlement, 567 money, proceeds of orders, 568 proof of part sufficient, 569 embracery, 1541 false pretense, all alleged false statements not necessary, 652 obtaining from agent, 653 obtaining from two persons, 654 different member of firm, 655 existing and non-existing fact, 657 judgment or money, 658 forgery, bank bill is note, 980 forging one of several names, 981 immaterial variance, 982, payee of money order, forging or passing, selling or uttering, as to number of document, forging name to check is for- gery of check. 983 984 985 986 987 988 gaming. 2249, 2250, 3200 incest, 2095 Intoxicating liquors, keeping for sale, 1469 "selling" or "giving," 1470 as to place, 1471 as to persons. 1472 dates of sales. 1473, 1474 variance as to name. 1475 larceny, false pretense. 480 stealing from house. "ware . house," 481 1030 INDEX. VAEIANCE- IBeferences are to Sections.'] -SPECIFIC— Core. Y'ENVE— Continued. distinct receiving, oeny, description, sex of animal, description of money; as to owner, corporation de facto, different offense, as to amount, libel, malicious mischief, murder case. from lar- 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 1293 828, 829, 830 155, 156, 157 obscene literature, vulgar -words, 2191 nude pictures, 2192 obstruction of highway, 1341 perjury, judge or clerk, 1661 as to time, 1662 as to amount, 1664 larceny or robbery, 1665 as to date, 1666 postal law -violations, 2391 rape ease, 357, 358 receiving stolen goods, as to de- scription, 684 as to corporate name, 685 receiving, not aiding, 686 unknown to grand jury, 687 receiving jointly, 688 robbery, from person, 790 "in a building," "near a build- ing," 791 "putting in fear," from "force," 792 tampering with witness, 1836 trespass, 1066 VENEREAL DISEASE, showing in rape, 345 VENIRE, motion to^quash, 2924 VENUE, abortion, 1947 arson. 870 bribery, 1520 circumstantial evidence, 3194 conspiracy. 1252 embezzlement. 559, 576 false pretense, 659 forgery. 989 gaming, 2253 indictment, alleging. 2739 larceny. 426, 450 163 1668 3193 3195 689 3349 2748 murder case, perjury, proof of, railroad offense, receiving stolen goods, JuBisDicTioN, See. VERBAL ERRORS, effect of in verdict, VERBAL INACCURACIES, effect of, in indictment, VERDICT, amending, 3362 not complete, 3363 surplusage in, 3364 arson, 894 assault case, 225 assault to commit felony, 3379 bar, when, 3380 burglary, 760 Indictment suflBcient after, 720 defendant absconding before, 3330 defendant's age, 3375 degree of murder, 158 discharge of jury before, 3376 form, general or special, 3347 special, facts essential, 3348 verbal errors, 3349 general, finding on greater of- fense, 3350 general, several accounts, 3351 general, some counts bad, 3352 general, counts abandoned, 3353 general, larceny and burglary, .3354 general, murder case, 3355 general, where degrees, 3356 illegal, unauthorized by law, 3371 effect of, 2625 when void, 3372 compromise, 3373 Impeaching by defendant's affi- davit, 3361 impeaching by jurors, 3360 included offense, 3357 incompetent and uncertain, 3374 instruction as to, in murder, 162 jeopardy where unlawfully re- turned, 2620 jurors can not impeach, 3317 jury drinking intoxicants, 3359 jury's duty as to, 3378 INDEX. 1031 IReferences are to Sections.'] \EB.T>ICT— Continued. VOTERS, larceny, general, stating value, manslaughter, acquits of der, polling jury, receiving, after judgment, on Sunday, open court, presence of defendant, receiving stolen goods, sealed by agreement, several counts, several defendants, surplusage in. Punishment, See. Sentence, See. VERIFICATION, motion for new trial, * 3313 petition for change of venue, 2812 VIEWING PREMISES, by jury, 3203 VINEGAR, power to regulate sale of, 1840, 1847 VIOLATING ELECTION LAWS, Election Laws, See. VIOLENCE, arrest, resisting, unreasonable, 1566 robbery, 765 Force, See. VIRTUOUS WOMAN, who is, 2127 VOID JUDGMENT, habeas corpus as remedy, 3444 VOID PROCEEDINGS, swearing in, perjury, 1611 VOID VERDICT, jury discharged, jeopardy, 2617 VOIDABLE JUDGMENT, Jiaieas corpus improper, 3456 VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS, effect of, 3109 490 bribing. 1502 2307 491 indictment. 2350 mur- candidate influencing. 2308 159 unlawful influence. 2309 2310 3377 when not influenced. 2311 3367 convicted of felony, effect of. 2321 3368 county seat change. 2312 3369 evidence how they voted, 2355 3370 qualifications, election law indict- 690, 691 ment. 2334 3365 registering twice. 2340 3358 voting fraudulently. 2342 3366 more than once, 2343 3364 Election, See. VOTING, defined. 2298 VULGAR WORDS, obscene literature, variance, 2191 W WAIVER, argument, 2866 arraignment, 2837 copy of indictment, arraign- ment, 2835 defects, complaint in bastardy, 2027 defects in indictment, 2766 error, certificate on change of venue, 2823 exceptions not taken, 2852 incompetency of juror, 2977 privilege of witness, 3043 rights in murder case, 165 trial by jury, 2560, 2979, 2980 trial in county of offense, 2820 written instructions, 3238 Tmal and Incidents (Waiv- ing Rights), See. WAREHOUSE, arson, burglary, 838 705 WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS, forgery of, 913 WARRANT, arrest without, 1578, 1824, 2527, 2639-2649 when unlawful, 262f> based on aflidavlt, 2C;;0 1032 INDEX. IReferences are to Bections.'] WARRAtiT— Continued. defective, evidence, 3135 extradition, 3432, 3433 WARRANT FOR ARREST, officer prolteQt,ed by, 2634 officer showing before making ar- rest, 1563, 265G signed. in, blank void, 2632 void one may be resisted, 2631 Aerbst, See. Seakch Wakeant, See. WARRANTY OF TITLE, as defense in false pretenses, 60S WATER, subject of larceny, 390 public or private, 1015 WATER-COURSE, defined, 1016 obstructing, nuisance, 1895 poisoning, nuisance, 1896 WAY-BILLS, evidence in bjirglary, 750 postal law violations, 2390 WEAK-MINDED WOMAN, rape of, 301 WEAPONS, carrying, arrest without war- rant, 2646 carrying in pieces, offense, 1162 carrying openly, 1166 defendants using one, 79, 81 describing, indictment for as- sault, 206, 207 evidence, 1184, 3133 malice implied from that used, 136 murder, in which hand, 65 indictment, 81 robbery, indictment, 780 variance as to, 225 Concealed Weapons, See. Deadly Weapon, See. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, character, 3154 confessions, 3095 declarations, 3113 dying statements, 118 WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE^Cow. extradition. 3435 habeas corpus. 3462 insanity. 2433 jury determines, 3202 libel. 1283 testimony of accomplice, 2993 Bvedence, See. WHISKEY, is intoxicant, 1375 WIFE, bigamy, living, 1992 proof of, 2002 compelled by husband, 2458 husband appropriating goods, larceny, 411 non-resident, jurisdiction in aban- donment of wife, 1080 rape, indictment, 313 personating husband, 317 robbery by, 773 witness, in abandonment of wife, 1079 adultery, 1978 incest, 2097 Abandonment of Wife, See. Husband and Wife, See. WILD ANIMALS, larceny of. 389 WILLFUL OMISSION OF DUTY, causing death, manslaughter, 30 WILLFULNESS, disorderly conduct, election law violation. Intent, See. WINE, as intoxicant, WITHDRAWING PLEA, discretion, pleading again, 1088 2356 1375 2832 2833 WITNESS, abandonment of wife, wife as, 1079 abduction, female as, 264 absent, procuring, 2798 additional witnesses, 3047 adultery, wife incompetent, 1978 attendance of, 2792, 2793 INDEX. 1033 IReferences are to Sections:^ WITNESS— Continued. WITNESS— Continued. rtastardy, mother as, 2054 husband and wife as, 2056 ;lt)igamy, marriage, 2001 competency, 2008 i|)ribing, indictment, 1517 prosecuting witness bribing, 1506 committing until he answers, 1777 competency, accomplice as, 2992 co-defendant, 2992 weight of accomplice's testi- mony, 2993 detective and accomplice, 2994 if convicted of crime, 2295 husband and wife, 2296 •husband and wife, valid marriage essential, 2297 husband and wife, adultery, 2298 wife witness for co-defendant, 2299 husband and wife after divorce, 3000 husband and wife, wife's adul- tery, 3001 husband and wife, statements to others, 3002 husband and wife, impeaching each other, 3003 religious test, form of oath, 3004 deaf mute, signs, 3005 child as witness, 3006 testing, 3007 witness rejected on ground of incompetency, 3008 •defendant compelled to be, 3009, 3010, 3011 juror as, 3012 grand juror as, 3013 dead witness, evidence of, 3014 absent witness, 3015, 3016 compulsory process, continu- ance, 2802 contempt, asserting, 1680 refusing to answer, 1699 disobeying subpena, 1700, 1701 expert refusing to answer, 1725 court, excluding from, 3049 counterfeits, to prove, 971 credibility, jury judge of, 3017 «ross-examination, intentional omission on first examination, 3058 contradictory statements, 3058 when improper, 3059 court controlling, 3060 latitude allowed, 3061 on letters, 3062 witness may explain, 3063 questions for impeachment, 3064 inquiry as to reputation, 3065 impeachment on, 3066, 3067 question concerning convic- tions, 3068 impeaching improperly, 3069 defendant, improper, 3070 defendant, latitude, , 3071 examination of officer, 3072 dead witness, testimony of, 3073 declarations of incompetent, 109, 110 defendant competent as, 3011 defendant same as other, instruc- tions, 3277 examination of, discretion of court, 3053 further examination discre- tionary, 3054 counsel should examine, 3055 leading questions improper, 3056 memorandum, aid memory, 3057 without notice, 3328 expert in liquor case, 1455 questions to, 3074 hypothetical questions, 3075 cross-examination of, 3076 medical expert, 3077 competency of medical expert, 3078 opinion of medical expert, 3079 eye-witnesses to a crime, 3048 in homicide, 152 fees, when subpenaed, 3050 expert witness, 3051 arrest of witness In court, er- ror, 3052 former testimony of, 3180 gaming, professional players, 2248 privilege of, 2254 grand jury before, 2688-2691 incest, wife as, 2097 indorsing on indictment, 2687, 2783 impeaching, in libel, 1288 one's own witness, 3021 defendant, impeaching, 3022 infamous crime, 3023 improperly, 3024 co-defendant, 3025 reputation of witness, 3026 recollection, 3027 contradiction, former state- ment, 3028 contradiction, identification, 3029 contradiction, hostility, 3030 contradiction, all said, 3031 contradiction, letter, 3032 1034 INDEX. [References are to Sections.'] 'WITNESS— Continued. 'WO'M.AN— Continued. contradiction, grand jury evi dence, contradiction, before coroner, failure to disclose, . ill will,. by criminal life, questions for, inquiry as to reputation, by cross-examination, by contradiction, 3067, questions concerning convic- tion, infamous crime, - Instruction as to, 3272, jury judges of credibility, larceny, owner as, leaving court, continuance, non-experts, about blood, competency, when incompetent, "impressions" of, conclusions of, non-resident, continuance, opinions by, by non-experts, 3038, by medical experts, by bank experts, perjury, effect of credibility, two not essential, new trial where admitted, presence of, waiving, privilege, , 1705- court to judge, privileges of, from arrest, from exposure, waiver, when, attorney and client, personal to witness, statute relating to, prosecution sustaining, refusing counsel to talk with, slanderous words, in libel, sustaining, 3018, character, thoughts, not to give, waiving list of, Tampering With Witnesses, See. WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE, forgery of. 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3064 3065 3066 3069 3068 3182 3273 2987 478 2794 153 3080 3081 3082 3082 2805 3175 3039 3040 1587 1650 3324 2875 -1709 1708 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3160 3392 1287 3019 3020 148 2873 923 adultery, consent, 1951 defaming, libel, 1278 prostitute, proof, 2113 reputation, in bawdy house, 2112 seduced after reforming, 2126 1264, 1265 2127 slandering, virtuous one. Abortion, See. Abduction, See. Rape, See. WORDS, dying declarations, 95 false pretenses by, 587 instructions as to various ones, 3265, 3266 WOMAN, abortion, consent, statements of, condition of. 1921 1937 1938 insulting, assault, negative, provocation by, in murder, libel, actionable, proof, identical, Statutoby Wobds, See. WORDS AND PHRASES, "against will," 309, "agent," "alien," "any other building," "as follows," "at his instance," "attempt," "away," "bite," "breaking," "building," "burglariously," "buying," "cattle," "chaste life and conversation," "citizen," "clerk or servant," "contrary to law," "conversation," "craps," "crucible," "damned," "decision," "deliberately," "designedly," "disorderly house," "doctor," "domestic animals," "dwelling-house," "election," "executive officer," "falsely," 195 2728 38 1255 1293 447, 778 509, 510 1205 704 2733 1514 295 449 362 694 396, 718 712 675 795 251 1205 511, 513 1443 236 2201 914 2283 1496 66 633 1122 1888 816 836 2300 1496 1635 INDEX. 1035 "tool," 914 "to-wit," 2729 "unlawful assembly," 1303 "unlawfully," 315, 2743 "unmarried," 2135 "wantonly and willfully," 875 "warehouse," 481, 705 "willful," 1049 "willfully," 66, 371, 1635, 2467, 2743 "willfully and corruptly," 2742 "Willfully and falsely," 1582 "willfully and feloniously," 245 "with quick child," 1917 "within curtilage," 733 "writing," 579 Definitions, See. WORK OF NECESSITY, Sunday Violations, See. [References are to Sections.'} WORDS AND PHRASES— Com. WORDS AND PHRASES— Con. "feloniously," 315, 449, 712, 1635, 2079, 2742 "felony," 708, 3288 "food," 1839 "funds," 549 "giving," 1470, 3224 "house," 2101 "human heing," 71 "illicit intercourse," 2125 "induced to part with," 628 "inhabitant," 1205 "instruments," 914 "intoxicating liquors," 1374 "inveigle," 271 "keno," 2202 "kept mistress," 237 "knowingly," 633, 1558, 1576, 1635 "lawful process," 1572 "leaden balls," 73 "malice aforethought," 62 "maliciously," 371, 1275, 2467 "manager," 1880 "may," 2539, 3266 "means unknown," 157 "milk," 1843 "must," 3266 "occupied," 716 "officer," 518 "on or about," 2725 "or," 2729 "ought," 3266 "person," 600, 2524, 2540 "profit," 2106 "public place," 2210 "quick with child," 1917, 3304 "ravish," 314 "receiving," 675 "relied upon," 645 "residence," 277 "resident," 1205 "satisfactorily," 51 "school," 1085 "selling," 1470, 3224 "shall," 2539 "shop," 2746 "slit," 362 "spirituous liquors," 1374 "stable," 718 "stealing," 376 "store," 718, 2746 "storehouse," 481, 705 "token," 579 "taking away," 232 "tenement," 2747 "tenor," 2733 "then and there," 2726 "to terror of people," 1303 WORTHLESS CHECK, passing, false pretenses, WOUND, describing in indictment for murder, neglecting, effect on murder, 588 74 15 WRIT OF ERROR, bail pending, common law, costs in prosecuting, court, from what, death abates, dismissal, when. 2661, 2662 3406 3411 3408 3410 3409 3407 3466 2572 escaped prisoner not entitled to, habeas corpus not allowed, jurisdiction suspended by, Appeal, See. Habeas Corpus, See. Record, See. WRITING, confession reduced to, 3108 instructions to be in, 3238 libel must be in, 1280 proving defendant's, in forgery, 979 WRITTEN INSTRUCTION, construction, question of law, 2532 WRITTEN INSTRUMENT, perjury based on matter in, Construction, See. 1630 1036 INDEX. [References are to Sections.] WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WRONG COUNTY, dying declarations, jury not to take. 93, 94 124 WRITTEN WARRANTY, when not a defense in false pre- tenses, 608 WRONG ACTION. jurisdiction, when none, 2565 conviction in, jeopardy, 2608 WRONG STATE. conviction in, jeopardy, 2607 YEAR, served as .juror within, chal- lenge, 2931 Whole nnmber of pa^^s, 114i7. •ft** r > n