be had on the unsupported confession.-Owens | proper question of self-defense, instructions on v. State, 179 S. W. 1014. the same question requested by the defendant were properly refused.-Thompson v. State, 179 (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency S. W. 561. of Instructions. 775 (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge on alibi instructing jury to acquit upon reasonable doubt of presence of defendant at time and place of offense held good.-McAninch v. State, 179 S. W. 719. 778 (Ark.) On a trial for homicide, it was not error to charge in the language of Kirby's Dig. 1765, relative to the burden of proving mitigating circumstances.-Johnson v. State, 179 S. W. 361. 829 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a charge requested by accused and covering the issue is given, other special charges requested by accused on same issue are properly refused.-Davis v. State, 179 S. W. 702. 829 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for larceny, held, in view of the charge as to defendant's explanation of his possession of the property, that it was unnecessary to give requested special charges on that issue.-Rice v. State, 179 S. W. 876. 778 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction that burden of proof is on state held usually sufficient, un-829 (Tex.Cr.App.) The refusal of requested less some peculiarity requires the further in- charges covered by those given is not error.struction that the burden never shifts to de- Edwards v. State, 179 S. W. 1163. fendant.-Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448. 780 (Tex.Cr.App.) The fact that officers proper charge on an issue, it was not necessary officers829 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the court gave a went to one charged with practicing medicine to give a special requested charge thereon.unlawfully and procured him to treat them does Durley v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. not make them his accomplices so as to require834 (Ark.) The court is not bound to give a charge on accomplices' testimony.-Hyroop instructions exactly in the requested words, if v. State, 179 S. W. 878. the instruction given is correct and complete. 780 (Tex.Cr.App.) If testimony suggested Sheppard v. State, 179 S. W. 168. that the state's witnesses were accomplices,834 (Ark.) A requested charge that accusheld, that the court should have charged the ed's alleged confession should be received with provisions of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 801, caution being on the weight of evidence, deas to the corroboration of accomplices.-Bagley fendant cannot complain of a modification, v. State, 179 S. W. 1167. charging that conviction could not be had on the unsupported confession.-Owens v. State, 179 S. W. 1014. (I) Objections to Instructions or Refusal Thereof, and Exceptions. 782 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, held not error to refuse to instruct that, where the facts were susceptible of two interpretations, that of innocence must prevail.-Deshazo v. State, 179 S. W. 1012. 792 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction in prosecution 844 (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection to a charge for cattle theft held sufficient on the distinction that it did not directly submit the issues raised between principal and accomplice, and the ne- by the evidence, and did not instruct on certain cessity of acquittal if accused was the latter.- subjects, held not to point out specific errors, as McAninch v. State, 179 S. W. 719. required by statute.-McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. 801 (Tex.Cr.App.) Reading charge before argument held not mandatory in misdemeanor cases.--Robison v. State, 179 S. W. 1157. 814 (Ark.) In a prosecution for assault with intent to rape, refusal to give instructions distinguishing between acts of preparation and acts constituting the beginning of the attempt to commit rape held properly refused, where not required by the issues.-Tyra v. State, 179 S. W. 167. (J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury. 854 (Tenn.) In a capital case, it constitutes reversible error to permit the jury to go at large pending the trial, though accused consents, this depriving him of his constitutional guaranties of fair and impartial trial by jury. -Lee v. State, 179 S. W. 145. 854 (Tenn.) Notwithstanding accused's consent to separation of the jury, a conviction of felony cannot be upheld under Const. art. 1, § 9.-Long v. State, 179 S. W. 315. 814 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there were two counts charging cattle theft, one charging ownership in husband, and one in wife, charge on question of theft of cow as property of husband held good.-McAninch v. State, 179 S. W. 719.866 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conduct of jury in pros822 (Tex.Cr.App.) Objection that charge in prosecution for carrying pistol was contradictory cannot prevail, when charge, as a whole, was clear and could not mislead jury.-Davis v. State, 179 S. W. 702. (H) Requests for Instructions. 829 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, instruction that indictment raised no presumption of guilt held properly refused, in view of other instructions given.-Deshazo v. State, 179 S. W. 1012. In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, held not error to refuse to instruct as to reasonable doubt, where the law on such subject was covered by instructions given.-Id. ecution for theft, in determining term of imprisonment by totaling the amount desired by all and dividing by their number, the result not being followed ultimately, but a different term of imprisonment being agreed upon. he'd to present no error.-Luna v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL 922 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant failed to except to the charge in a misdemeanor trial he could not raise objection on motion for new trial.-Robison v. State, 179 S. W. 1157. 925 (Tex.Cr.App.) That jurors during the trial made comments on accused's conduct at the time held not ground for new trial, in the absence of any showing that accused was not guilty of such conduct.-Word v. State, 179 S. W. 1175. In prosecution for assault with intent to kill, it was not error to refuse to instruct that words of threatening character might reduce the crime to aggravated assault, or justify an aggravated assault in view of other instructions given.928 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of juror, be-Id. 829 (Tex.Cr.App.) On a trial for theft, a requested instruction as to defendant's posses sion of the stolen property and his explanation held sufficiently presented by instructions given. -Whitfield v. State, 179 S. W. 558. 829 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where in a prosecution fore vote was taken, that he knew prosecuting witness would not swear another man into the penitentiary, held not to justify new trial.Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. 938 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for seduction motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence, held improperly overruled.-Long 945 (Tex.Cr.App.) New trial, after convic- | mission of special charges before the charge was tion of assault to rape a child under 15 years, read.-Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161. will not be granted for newly discovered testi-1043 (Ark.) Where erroneous instruction as mony of a physician that he found no bruises to disregarding testimony of witness testifying on the child.-Mays v. State, 179 S. W. 1192. falsely to any material fact was part of a long 949 (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for new trial instruction, and was not specifically called to in a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors the attention of the trial judge, held, that held properly overruled as too vague and in- there was no error.-Johnson v. State, 179 S. definite.-Alverez v. State, 179 S. W. 714. W. 361. 954 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a motion for a new trial, appellant should specifically point out the reasons for a new trial, so as to give the court a chance to correct its own errors, if any. Jackson v. State, 179 S. W. 711. 1051 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, the court on appeal will not consider question of venue not raised in the case and no bill of exception taken thereto.-Park v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. 956 (Tex.Cr.App.) A new trial sought on 1054 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court on appeal the ground of newly discovered evidence held cannot review the admission of evidence, alproperly refused, accused not making a suffi- leged as grounds for a new trial, to which no cient showing of diligence.-Ellis v. State, 179 exceptions were preserved on the trial below.S. W. 1163. Munoz v. State, 179 S. W. 566. 956 (Tex.Cr.App.) That a juror stated that accused would have been acquitted but for facts injected into the case as to his shooting of a third person, unaccompanied by any affidavit, held not ground for new trial.-Word v. State, 179 S. W. 1175. 1056 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where no exceptions were reserved to the court's charge when submitted to defendant's counsel for inspection, the refusal of special charges requested by defendant was proper.-Galvan v. State, 179 S. W. 875. 956 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant had 1064 (Tex.Cr.App.) All alleged errors must two days after verdict in which to secure the be contained in the motion for a new trial or affidavits of absent witnesses on motion for new in the bills of exceptions filed in the trial court, trial, it was not an abuse of discretion to re- especially in view of rule 101a for district and the continuance, where such affidavits county courts (159 S. W. xi).-Vinson v. State, were not produced.-May v. State, 179 S. W. 179 S. W. 574. 1176. 957 (Tex.Cr.App.) A conviction cannot be impeached by affidavits of the jury.-Chapman v. State, 179 S. W. 570. XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND A ground in a motion for a new trial, alleging that the court erred in its charge to the jury, but not attempting to point out any error, is too general to receive consideration.-Id. (C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause, and Effect Thereof. 982 (Tex.Cr.App.) The state on cross-ex-1069 (Tex.Cr.App.) No appeal can be taken amination of accused filing plea for suspension in criminal cases until sentence is pronounced, of sentence may show that he had been ar- since sentence is the final judgment.-Dodd v. rested for various crimes.-Backus v. State. State, 179 S. W. 564. 179 S. W. 1166. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and 1023 (Tex.Cr.App.) Pronouncement of sentence by the judge in vacation is not authorized, so that sentence so pronounced is not a final judgment on which an appeal may be rested.Dodd v. State, 179 S. W. 564. 1024 (Ky.) The commonwealth can appeal in criminal cases under Cr. Code Prac. § 337, only from decisions of the court adverse to it.Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844. 1069 (Tex.Cr.App.) An appeal does not lie until sentence has been pronounced.-Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record. 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there is neither a statement of facts nor any bill of exceptions, nothing is presented which the Court of Criminal Appeals can review.-Calvert v. State, 179 S. W. 98. 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there is neither statement of facts nor bill of exceptions, and the only ground of motion for new trial was that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, the ruling thereon cannot be reviewed.Lockhart v. State, 179 S. W. 556. 1026 (Ky.) Defendant has an appeal under Cr. Code Prac. §§ 335, 337, from final judgment of conviction, but he cannot appeal before judg-1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record on apment and afterwards also, or prosecute a crossappeal upon an appeal by the commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Brand, 179 S. W. 844. peal contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions, the ruling on a motion for new trial is not reviewable on appeal.-Lawson v. State, 179 S. W. 557. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Low-1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Complaints in the moer Court of Grounds of Review. 1028 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court of criminal appeals can pass only upon such questions as are properly raised in the trial court.-Davis v. State, 179 S. W. 702. 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statutory provision as to objections to charge and failure to charge held one the Legislature had a right to enact, and one which the courts can neither ignore nor emasculate.-Vinson v. State, 179 S. W. 574. Under Code Cr. Proc. art. 743, defendant, in the absence of objection or request for special charge, cannot complain of court's failure to charge as to contention not made at the trial. -Id. 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in refusing charges held not shown, where transcript did not show exception to charge and request for sub tion for new trial of rulings on evidence, as to which no bills of exceptions appear in the record, cannot be considered on appeal.-Rea v. State, 179 S. W. 706. 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) The impropriety of overruling a motion for continuance cannot be reviewed without a bill of exceptions.-Smith v. State, 179 S. W. 1165. 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed in absence of statement of facts or bill of exceptions.-Gragara v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Insufficiency of the evidence, asserted as ground for a new trial, held not reviewable, in the absence of a bill of exceptions or statement of facts.-Ridgeway v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 1091 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions | showing merely the substance of evidence objected to, but failing to show when the objections were made or what the other evidence on the subject was, is insufficient under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. §§ 857, 1123.-Tinker v. State, 179 S. W. 572. A bill of exceptions to the conduct of a prose cuting attorney which states only appellant's conclusions, and not facts, does not show reversible error.-Id. 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction cannot be considered without a statement of facts.-Smith v. State, 179 S. W. 1165. 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) The contention of appellant that evidence fails to support the conviction cannot be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.-Augustine v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 1098 (Tex. Cr.App.) Statement of facts, made up of questions and answers, held not to be considered.-Hawkins v. State, 179 S. W. 448. 1091 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 938, a bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to direct acquittal on ground that 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) After conviction for a venue had not been proven presents no question. misdemeanor, a statement of facts not filed un-Fondren v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. til 81 days after adjournment of the county court will be stricken.-Celo v. State, 179 S. W. 1092 (Ark.) Where accused failed to file his bill of exceptions within the time granted therefor, no question on the admission of evidence or the' instructions is presented on appeal.-Riley v. State, 179 S. W. 661. 99. of facts was filed after adjournment of court appeal.-Riley1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the statement without an order for that purpose, such papers will not be considered.-Van Dyke v. State, 179 S. W. 111. 1992 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the bills of exceptions were filed after adjournment of court without an order for that purpose, such papers will not be considered.-Van Dyke v. State, 179 S. W. 111. Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, does not authorize statement of facts and bills of exceptions to be filed after adjournment of court, whether there was an order entered to that effect or not.-Id. Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 845, does not authorize statements of fact to be filed after adjournment of court, whether there was an order entered to that effect or not.-Id. Where an order of the trial court authorizing the filing of statement of facts after adjournment was not carried forward into the minutes of the court, it does not authorize filing after adjournment.-Id. Where an order of the trial court authorizing the filing of bills of exceptions after adjourn-1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, apment was not carried forward into the minutes of the court, it does not authorize filing after adjournment.-Id. 1092 (Tex. Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions, approved and filed about 75 days after the term of court at which accused was tried had adjourned, cannot be considered.-Martin v. State, 179 S. W. 121. proved and filed about 75 days after the term of court at which accused was tried had adjourned, cannot be considered.-Martin v. State, 179 S. W. 121. 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the statement of facts fails to show its presentment or approval below, it cannot be considered.-Dorris v. State, 179 S. W. 718. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions, filed1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, filafter adjournment, without an order entered after adjournment, without an order entered ed after adjournment, without an order entered for the purpose, will not be considered.-Luna for the purpose, will not be considered.-Luna v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Allowance of bill of exceptions to remarks by county attorney not excepted to or called to the court's attention until the motion for a new trial, and denied by the county attorney to have been made, held properly refused.-Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exception can-Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161. not be considered where the trial court refused expressly to approve them.-Backus v. State, 179 S. W. 1166. 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Alleged newly discovered evidence and misconduct of jury and county attorney as to which evidence was heard on motion for new trial held not reviewable without a statement of facts filed during term time. 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal from county court cannot consider statement of facts filed after adjournment of the term, in absence State, 179 S. W. 1167. of order allowing filing thereof.-Williams v. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal from 3 county court cannot consider bills of exception filed after adjournment of the term, in absence 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts filed of order allowing filing thereof.-Williams v. within 90 days after sentence pronounced at State, 179 S. W. 1167. term subsequent to that at which accused was convicted held filed in time.-Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions, filed more than 20 days after adjournment of court, held not to be considered.-Ridgeway v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) A so-called "Appellant's Exceptions to the Charge of the Court," not verified by the trial judge, or shown to have been presented to him for his action before the trial was concluded, cannot be considered.Grisham v. State, 179 S. W. 1186. 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts, filed more than 20 days after adjournment of court, held not to be considered.-Ridgeway v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 1102 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there was no order in the record authorizing a statement of facts to be filed after adjournment of county court, a purported statement of facts must be 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where term of court ad- stricken.-McGee v. State, 179 S. W. 1165. journed on May 15th, bills of exceptions filed1102 (Tex.Cr.App.) A statement of facts filJuly 29th and 30th held to be stricken and not ed more than 20 days after the adjournment of considered.-Green v. State, 179 S. W. 1191. the court will be stricken on motion.-Lawson 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) Without statement of v. State, 179 S. W. 1186. facts, the grounds of a motion for new trial re-1102 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where term of court adlating to the insufficiency of the evidence, to the journed on May 15th, statement of facts filed improper conduct of counsel, and to the erro- July 29th held to be stricken.-Green v. State, neous admission of evidence, cannot be reviewed. 179 S. W. 1191. -Dixon v. State, 179 S. W. 561. 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in refusing special charges in criminal case held not reviewable, in absence of a statement of facts.-Dorris 111 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a bill of exceptions as qualified by the court and a bystander's bill are filed, the court must consider the questions raised by bystander's bill.-Word v. State, 1114 (Tex.Cr.App.) In absence of bills of will be denied where the statement is in no way exception, complaints as to charge, and re- verified.-Robertson v. State, 179 S. W. 106. quests for special charges, the only question on appeal from a conviction of crime was the sufficiency of the evidence.-Looper v. State, 1791134 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the only quesS. W. 110. 1114 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record the record on appeal contains no statement of facts, bill of exceptions, or motion for new trial, no question is presented which can be reviewed.-Garza v. State, 179 S. W. 556. (G) Review. tion properly presented by the motion for new trial was the alleged insufficiency of the evidence and the only bill of exceptions was to the overruling of the motion, the sole question for review is the insufficiency of the evidence.Grubbs v. State, 179 S. W. 718. 1119 (Tex. Cr.App.) Prosecuting attorney's 1134 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where no exceptions allusion to the negro race in harsh and bitter were reserved to the introduction of any testiterms held not to require a reversal, in the ab-mony, nor to the charge, and no special charge sence of a proper statement of facts.-Hawkins was requested, the only question presented for v. State, 179 S. W. 448. review was the sufficiency of the testimony. 1119 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions, Richardson v. State, 179 S. W. 1186. complaining of a remark of the state's attor-1137 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the court, on deney, held not to present reversible error.-Park fendant's request, charges that his failure to v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. testify shall not be taken as a circumstance against him, defendant cannot show error therein.-Munoz v. State, 179 S. W. 566. 1120 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record fails to include questions which the court rules call for opinions of witnesses, and to which ruling the defendant excepts, the ruling must be taken as correct, and no question is presented for review.-Rea v. State, 179 S. W. 706. 1144 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record omits evidence on the question of qualification of jurors, the ruling on a motion to discharge the jury for want of qualifications must be presumed 1120 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions, correct.-Thompson v. State, 179 S. W. 561. complaining of the refusal to strike out the tes-1148 (Ark.) In absence of proof of prejutimony of a witness, held not to present reversible error, where the testimony of the witness was not shown.-Park v. State, 179 S. W. 1152. 1121 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court, on appeal from a conviction of violating the local option law, in the absence of evidence on the point 1151 (Ark.) The trial court has a large cannot consider whether the option election discretion in granting or refusing continuances, was invalid.-Van Dyke v. State, 179 S. W. and, unless there has been a manifest abuse 111. of its discretion in the denial of a continuance, its action will not be reversed.-Carmen v. State, 179 S. W. 183. dice, refusal of trial court to grant defendant's motion, under section 2350, Kirby's Dig., to discharge sheriff and the venire summoned by him for prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion.Oliver v. State, 179 S. W. 366. 1121 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's bill of exceptions to the denial of a directed acquittal on the ground that venue was not shown, presents 1156 (Tex.Cr.App.) Denial of a new trial on no question for review, where the bill does not the ground of newly discovered evidence will contain the evidence on that point.-Thompson v. not be disturbed, unless it appears that the State, 179 S. W. 561. trial court abused its discretion, to defendant's prejudice.-McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. 1124 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there was no bill of exceptions or statement of facts or verification of the testimony set out in motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, held that nothing was presented for review. Besenta v. State, 179 S. W. 1185. 159 (Ark.) In testing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal to uphold the verdict, the only necessity is that there be some substantial evidence upon which to base it.-McLaughlin v. Benson, 179 S. W. 326. 1128 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court on appeal cannot consider an ex parte affidavit as to disqualifica-1159 (Tex.Cr.App.) A conviction will not tion of a juror for bias, made after the term at be reversed solely on the ground of the insuffiwhich the verdict was rendered, but is confined ciency of the evidence, if the state's evidence to matters which are a part of the record in is worthy of credit, and if true supports the the trial court.-Rea v. State, 179 S. W. 706. verdict.-Mitchell v. State, 179 S. W. 116. 1128 (Tex.Cr.App.) Affidavit of juror, that jury had considered the fact that defendant did not testify, which was not attached to nor made a portion of nor an exhibit to the motion for new trial, cannot be considered.-Ornelas v. State, 179 S. W. 717. (E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs. 1129 (Tex.Cr.App.) Assignments of error filed in vacation have no place in a transcript in a criminal case, as the motion for a new trial alone will be looked to.-Vinson v. State, 179 S. W. 574. 1129 (Tex. Cr.App.) Assignments of error, filed after the term at which appellant was tried has adjourned, have no place in the record. Jackson v. State, 179 S. W. 711. (F) Dismissal, Hearing, and Rehearing. 1131 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where, since conviction and pending appeal, accused escaped from custody, the appeal will be dismissed.-Acosta v. State, 179 S. W. 870. 1159 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there is a conflict in the evidence which sustains the verdict, the court on appeal will not set the verdict aside.-Tinker v. State, 179 S. W. 572. 1159 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a direct conflict in the testimony has been decided adversely to the accused, the judgment will not ordinarily be reversed.-Grant v. State, 179 S. W. 871. 1159 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, whether defendant or the witnesses for the state were to be believed was a matter for the jury and the trial court alone.-Taylor v. State, 179 S. W. 1161. 1159 (Tex.Cr.App.) A conviction on conflicting testimony and sustained by testimony will not be disturbed.-Wilburton v. State, 179 S. W. 1169. 1163 (Ark.) Admission of question on crossexamination of one jointly indicted with accused as to whether his brother had not been charged with killing and burning a woman held presumptively prejudicial.-Counts v. State, 179 S. W. 662. 1133 (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for rehear-1166 (Tex.Cr.App.) The denial of a contining, based upon statements that appellant was uance because of the absence of witnesses whose deprived of a statement of facts and bill of ex- presence was secured presents no error.-Galceptions through the fault of the trial judge, van v. State, 179 S. W. 875. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 11662 (Tex.Cr.App.) Remark of the court in ruling on evidence held not reversible error, where the court, at the request of accused, directed the jury not to consider the question or answer.-Word v. State, 179 S. W. 1175. CROPS. See Constitutional Law, 240, 296; Criminal Law, 1026. CROSS-EXAMINATION. 1169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Although it is error to admit oral evidence that a certain person in- See Witnesses, 269-280, 330. sured burned property, and at the same time exclude the policy of insurance, in showing CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. ownership, the error is harmless, where other evidence showed ownership.-Tinker v. State, See Criminal Law, 1213. 179 S. W. 572. CRUELTY. 1169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's exception to a ruling admitting evidence in his favor cannot be considered on appeal.-Rea v. State, 179 See Divorce, 130. S. W. 706. 1169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of testimony based on what witness was told by G. held not reversible error, where G. testified to the same facts without contradiction.--Southall v. State, 179 S. W. 872. 1169 (Tex.Cr.App.) Admission of evidence of propositions of defendant in seduction to witness was harmless, where it was stricken out, and the jury instructed to disregard it; the jury having assessed the lowest punishment.McDonald v. State, 179 S. W. 880. Where proper objection was not made till after witness had testified to part of the contents of a letter, and was then sustained, there was no error; the court having previously instructed that, under such circumstances, testimony should not be considered.-Id. CURTESY. 12 (Ark.) Where defendants bought plaintiff's estate by the curtesy, without investigating whether taxes were paid, and there were no misrepresentations they would not be relieved of payment, on the ground the estate was forfeited for nonpayment of taxes under Kirby's Dig. § 7132.-Ward v. Ward, 179 S. W. 495. CUSTOMS AND USAGES. See Master and Servant, 118. 4 (Tex. Civ.App.) Custom or usage to enlarge scope of agent's authority must exist long enough to become generally known so as to warrant presumption of silent inclusion by principal.-Holmes v. Tyner, 179 S. W. 887. DAMAGES. Erroneous admission of testimony is not ground for reversal; the same fact having been testified to by another, without objection.-Id. 1170 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where, on trial for cat-See Appeal and Error, 1004; Breach of tle theft, a state's witness confessed that he was a thief and had aided in the theft, exclusion of testimony on cross-examination of his attempt to get a third person to aid in stealing cattle held not prejudicial, where he had also testified to such fact on the direct.-Durley v. State, 179 S. W. 1170. Marriage Promise, 29; Carriers, 319, 382; Death, 91-99; False Imprisonment, 35, 36; Landlord and Tenant, 129; Libel and Slander, 120; Malicious Prosecution, 68; Master and Servant, 41; Municipal Corporations, 385-404; Negligence, 101; New Trial, 75, 76; Telegraphs and Telephones, 68. 11702 (Tex.Cr.App.) That the court per- III. GROUNDS AND SUBJECTS OF W. 1189. 1172 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where all the evidence showed that the sale, violating the prohibition law, was within less than two years prior to the return of the indictment, the court's error in authorizing a conviction for a sale before the two years was harmless.-Sloan v. State, 179 S. W. 111. (H) Determination and Cause. Disposition of 1184 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where, contrary to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused was sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment, the judgment will be reformed so as to comply with the law, and affirmed.-Dixon v. State, 179 S. W. 561. 1186 (Tenn.) Under Pub. Acts 1911, c. 32, where in spite of error the judgment is sustained by the evidence, and it appears that the error is harmless, no new trial will be granted. -Lauterbach v. State, 179 S. W. 130. XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME. 1213 (Ky.) Act March 17, 1904 (Laws 1904, c. 29, Ky. St. § 1201c), prescribing imprisonment in the penitentiary for poultry theft, held not in violation of Const. § 17, prohibiting cruel punishments.-Fry v. Commonwealth, 179 S. W. troupe as element of damage for breach of contract to furnish electricity for theater building held not within contemplation of parties; it being understood that the business to be conducted was that of a moving picture show. City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S. W. 1107. Damages not within the contemplation of parties held not recoverable, though defendant's representative had notice of the facts giving rise to such damages before the breach of the contract.-Id. 24 (Mo.App.) In action for personal injury, held, that the jury might take into account such future pain of body and mind, if any, as in all reasonable probability plaintiff would suffer as a direct result of his injury.-Clark v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 795. 32 (Ky.) Future suffering held element of damages in personal injury case regardless whether permanent impairment of earning power was pleaded or proved.-Moses v. Proctor Coal Co., 179 S. W. 1043. 40 (Mo.App.) In an action for damages for the termination of an insurance agency, expected profits may be recovered, where there is actual data upon which a reasonable estimate thereof may be based.-United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ridge, 179 S. W. 791. (B) Aggravation, Mitigation, and Reduc tion of Loss. 62 (Ark.) Plaintiffs' action for injury to a supply pool is not defeated by failure to re |