Page images
PDF
EPUB

§ 7. Evidence.

The evidence need not "exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but that of the guilt of the defendant" to authorize his conviction.Smith v. State (Ala.) 806.

A defendant in a homicide case has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury that he was affected with a disease of the brain, when the crime was committed, which either prevented a knowledge of right or wrong as applied to the particular act, or which destroyed his power of choice.-Lide v. State (Ala.) 953.

The physical or mental condition of a person, or his habits, may be proved by the opinion of an ordinary witness.-Mitchell v. State (Fla.)

242.

The evidence of an accomplice should be received with caution; but, if it carries conviction, the jury should give to it the same effect as that of a witness in no way implicated in the offense.-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275. Affidavit on which defendant was arrested held inadmissible in evidence against him.State v. Jackson (La.) 52.

Affidavit on which defendant was arrested held inadmissible to prove that a certain witness had not made it, when such fact had already been established.-State v. Jackson (La.)

52.

Testimony of a witness at a preliminary examination cannot be used on trial, without showing his death or permanent absence.-State v. Banks (La.) 53.

Testimony of prosecutor on charge of robbery, he subsequently dying from blow received in perpetration of the robbery, held inadmissible on prosecution for murder.-Dukes v. State (Miss.) 744.

Acts 1900, c. 104, does not authorize the admission of evidence, in an action for a penalty for violation of the liquor laws, under Code 1892, § 1590, that defendant had a United States liquor license, in the absence of a prior demand on him for its production.-Clark v. Adams (Miss.) 746.

§ 8.

Facts in issue and relevant to issues, and res gestæ. Where defendant, charged with murder, fled the country immediately after the homicide, evidence that three weeks thereafter a mob was formed and an attempt made to lynch his brother, who was indicted with defendant, was not competent as going to show that the flight was not due to conscious guilt.-Sanders v. State (Ala.) 564.

In prosecution for murder, declarations by defendant on starting toward deceased held admissible as part of res gestæ.-Campbell v. State (Ala.) 802.

Where the accused is tendered by his counsel to make before the jury an unsworn statement, he cannot give evidence as to matters which he could not testify to under oath.-State v. Perioux (La.) 1016. § 9.

Materiality and competency in

general.

Defendant having on cross-examination of a witness elicited from him part of a conversation with a person, the state may on rebuttal show the entire conversation.-Davis v. State (Ala.) 569.

Evidence by defendant that a person not a witness, nor shown to have been known to any witness for the state, attempted to procure a witness produced by defendant to give false evidence by threats, is properly excluded.Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

Evidence that a witness suspected that accused would burn the building, and watched. was inadmissible.-Williams v. State (Miss.) 197. § 10. Admissions, declarations, and

hearsay.

Evidence that defendant was silent when a statement accusing him of the crime was made near enough for him to hear it held admissible, though witness cannot state positively that he heard it.-Davis v. State (Ala.) 569.

Declarations by defendant which are no part of the res gestæ are inadmissible in his behalf. -State v. Harris (La.) 646.

Evidence of admissions, not part of the res gestæ, made by another person, to the effect that it was he, and not the accused, who killed deceased, are inadmissible as hearsay.-State v. Young (La.) 993.

Where a witness had testified that defendant had offered to hire him to burn the building. evidence that witness had told other persons of such offer was inadmissible.-Williams State (Miss.) 197.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Confession of defendant held admissible as State v. Sims (La.) 71. against him, but not against his codefendant.

defendants.

Confessions attributed to the made freely and voluntarily, and without the inducements of promises or threats, held admissible.-State v. Edwards (La.) 308.

Evidence held not to show that a confession was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.-Blalock v. State (Miss.) 105.

Where defendant was indicted in the circuit court for burglary and larceny, and he had pleaded guilty to larceny before a justice. he was entitled to an instruction limiting the plea of guilty to the charge of larceny only.Richardson v. State (Miss.) 544.

That defendant, charged with larceny, admitted his guilt, is insufficient to convict him of burglary in connection with the larceny, without other evidence of such fact.-Richardson v. State (Miss.) 544.

§ 12. Time of trial and continuance.

Where one is bound over to answer an indictment, his case is pending through the term of the court to which he is bound, unless sooner discharged.-Young v. State (Ala.) 373.

Where the city court has by the mittimus of the recorder obtained jurisdiction of the person and offense of a defendant, he cannot be discharged on habeas corpus during the life of the mittimus.-Young v. State (Ala.) 373.

Where one is bound over to answer an indictment, and the court adjourns without taking any action in the case, he cannot be longer detained; the mittimus being functus officio.-Young v. State (Ala.) 373.

Where the court, no indictment having been found against a defendant, enters an order of continuance for further investigation by the grand jury, the life of the mittimus is preserved, and defendant can properly be detained thereunder.-Young v. State (Ala.) 373.

Until accused has had the benefit of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, he cannot be forced to trial.-State v. Fairfax (La.) 1011.

An accused has not had the benefit of compulsory process, where the witness has not apDeared and the sheriff has made no return of summons in his hands.-State v. Fairfax (La) 1011.

Where the state, under Acts 1894, No. 84. admits, to avoid a continuance, that an absent witness would, if present, testify to certain ma

terial facts, proof of counter declarations by the witness on another occasion_held inadmissible in evidence.-State v. Guy (La.) 1012.

Refusal to allow defendant in a criminal case time to put in writing a motion for a continuance on ground of absence of a witness held error.-Hattox v. State (Miss.) 579.

Where, on defendant's trial for murder, his wife, a material witness, was sick, the refusal of a continuance held error which was not cured by permitting defendant's affidavit of that to which she would testify to be read to the jury.-Scott v. State (Miss.) 710.

§ 13. Trial.

Where defendant and his brother were jointly indicted for murder, the fact that the brother was tried first, convicted, and the verdict finding him guilty was written on the indictment, did not avoid the legal necessity of the paper being with the jury when they retired to make up the verdict on the trial of defendant.— Sanders v. State (Ala.) 564.

Refusal to delay trial till a witness could be brought into court held not an abuse of discretion.--Wells v. State (Ala.) 572.

Where an order was made for a venire in a capital case under Code, § 5005, and the list served on defendant contained the names of two whom the return of the sheriff showed were not summoned, it was error to refuse a motion, made before trial, to quash the venire. -Smith v. State (Ala.) 942.

Under Code, §§ 5005, 5273, the venire, served on a defendant in a capital case tried on a day in a week subsequent to that in which the special jurors for such trial are drawn, need not contain the names of those who, in the regular organization of juries for that week, were summoned to take the place of some on the venire for the week of trial who were unable to serve.-Johnson v. State (Ala.) 951.

It is not error in a homicide case to clear the court room on the occurrence of applause on the part of spectators.-Lide v. State (Ala.)

953.

A failure until after verdict to except to an omission or refusal of the court to sign the instructions, as required by statute, is a waiver of such requirement.-Easterlin v. State (Fla.) 350.

It is in the discretion of the court to allow prosecution or defense, after close of the evidence, to bring in additional testimony.-State v. Sims (La.) 71.

It is within the discretion of the trial court, after verdict and motion in arrest of judgment, to order the minutes to be corrected to correspond with the facts in the case.-State v. Bouline (La.) 885.

Misconduct of sheriff in calling to bailiff having charge of the jury that, unless they returned a verdict at once, they would be held until a following day. held to warrant a reversal.Shaw v. State (Miss.) 209.

$ 14.

mo

Objections to evidence, tions to strike out, and exceptions.

A general motion to exclude evidence, part of it competent, held properly overruled.-Davis v. State (Ala.) 569.

Objections to evidence must be made when it is offered.-Purdy v. State (Fla.) 229.

Where witnesses on behalf of the state ob

ject to answering questions on the ground that their answers would criminate them, but were required to do so, objections on the part of defendants to the evidence for the first time on motion for new trial comes too late.-Purdy v. State (Fla.) 229.

[blocks in formation]

It is not error, in a prosecution for assault and battery, to refuse to allow defendant's counsel to read law to the jury.-Walkley v. State (Ala.) 854.

Statements by the state's attorney, in his argument in a homicide case, that the killing was an assassination, and that an acquittal would "allow another murderer to go unwhipped of justice," held not improper.-Lide v. State (Ala.) 953.

Improper remarks of witnesses, though excepted to, are not grounds for reversal, where the court promptly excludes them from the consideration of the jury.-Conrad v. State (Miss.) 709.

Allowing prosecuting attorney, on a prosecution for murder, to assume in his argument that a threat had been made by defendant against deceased, when the evidence thereof was conflicting, held error.-Middleton v. State (Miss.) 809.

$ 16.

Province of court and jury in general.

An instruction on a prosecution for murder held properly refused as improperly assuming that defendant was in danger of his life when he killed deceased.-Pugh v. State (Ala.) 727.

and 30 witnesses have been examined, held not Where a criminal trial consumed several days, reversible error to state to the jury the desirability of coming to a verdict.-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

Declaration by judge that one witness has sworn specifically to the crime held harmless error, where made in a statement for the benefit of accused.--State v. Watkins (La.) 10.

Jury in criminal cases are judges of the law and the evidence.-State v. Watkins (La.) 10.

The jury are the sole judges of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.-State v. Washington (La.) 638. § 17.

Necessity, requisites, and sufficiency of instructions. Where the evidence against accused showed a positive confession by him, it was not error to refuse instructions that the evidence was circumstantial.-Hannigan v. State (Ala.) 89.

An instruction, on a prosecution for homicide, as to the fraudulent simulation of evidence to sustain an alibi, held proper.-Tatum v. State (Ala.) 369.

Where, on a trial for gaming at a public place, defendant requests a charge which hypothesizes facts not in evidence, and charges that, if the playing was done under such facts and circumstances, the jury must acquit, the request should be refused.-Cartiledge v. State (Ala.) 553.

If any juror is not convinced of defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, he cannot convict.-Fletcher v. State (Ala.) 561.

A charge on reasonable doubt held one defendant was entitled to have given.-Davis v. State (Ala.) 569.

doubt of guilt in the mind of either juror held A charge to acquit if there was reasonable properly refused.-Davis v. State (Ala.) 569.

Requested instructions held to give undue prominence to testimony of a witness, and to be argumentative. --Wells v. State (Ala.) 572.

[merged small][ocr errors]

A requested charge that a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason may be given is properly refused.-Thompson v. State (Ala.) 725.

In prosecution for murder, certain instructions postulating an acquittal on self-defense held properly refused as argumentative.— Campbell v. State (Ala.) 802.

In homicide case, certain charges held properly refused as unintelligible.-Adams v. State (Ala.) 851.

In homicide case, certain charges held properly refused as misleading.-Adams v. State (Ala.) 851.

A requested instruction in a prosecution for assault and battery held erroneous as being argumentative.-Walkley v. State (Ala.) 854.

A requested instruction held erroneous as authorizing an acquittal on the existence of reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt of a crime not charged in the indictment.-Stewart v. State (Ala.) 944.

A reasonable doubt may exist, though the evidence is insufficient to show a probability of innocence.-Stewart v. State (Ala.) 944.

On trial for homicide, it was not error to refuse an instruction stating that, if the prosecution had failed to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find him not guilty; defendant's own evidence showing that the homicide was committed by him.-Johnson v. State (Ala.) 951.

Under Rev. St. §§ 1091, 2920, instructions need only be in writing and signed by the judge, but need not be sealed by him.-Denmark v. State (Fla.) 269.

An instruction as to the value of circumstantial evidence held proper.-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

An instruction that if the guilt of the prisoner is to be established by circumstantial evidence, and the jurors have a doubt of any one of the circumstances showing guilt, that one should not be considered in making up their verdict, is erroneous.-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275. An instruction that the doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to each and every incident of the case held too broad.-State v. Watkins (La.) 10.

It is unnecessary for the court, on its own motion or on request, to instruct as to the lower grades of crime involved, when there is no evidence on which to base such instruction. -State v. Fruge (La.) 323.

Indefiniteness in instructions of court held harmless, in view of charges given at defendant's request.-Arbuckle v. State (Miss.) 437.

In a prosecution for murder, an instruction held misleading as intimating that defendant did the killing.-Gee v. State (Miss.) 792.

$ 18. Requests for instructions. Instructions containing propositions already substantially given are properly refused.-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

Where any one of several charges requested by counsel is wrong, the whole may be refused. -State v. Watkins (La.) 10.

[ocr errors]

Where accused asks for instruction, correct only under exceptional state of facts, he must bring it within such state. State v. Collette (La.) 73.

Where an instruction has already been substantially given, there is no error in refusing it.-State v. Cain (La.) 300.

An instruction substantially covered in the general charge was properly refused.-State v. Sims (La.) 645.

§ 19.

Objections to instructions or refusal thereof, and exceptions. Where refusals to give several instructions are embraced in one general exception, it is not available, if any one of such charges is properly refused.-King v. State (Fla.) 254.

To challenge the correctness of a legal proposition involved in a charge, it is sufficient to point out the particular part objected to, and to say that it is not a legal charge.-State v. Weston (La.) 383.

To challenge the correctness of a charge because of its inapplicability to the facts, or because it does not state the law with sufficient fullness, the respects in which it is deficient must be specified.-State v. Weston (La.) 383.

Exceptions to the charge of the judge must be made when the charge is given, and a bill of exceptions be then taken.-State v. Harris (La.) 7S2.

8 20.

Verdict.

Where a jury in a homicide case returns a verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and fixing "the punishment lifetime in the penitentiary." it is not error to instruct the jury to correct their verdict to read "at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life," if such is their intention.-Lide v. State (Ala.) 953.

On an information charging one with having shot the prosecuting witness with intent to kill, and the other with having aided the first defendant, a verdict of "guilty with intent to kill" was insufficient, as failing to set forth the elements of the crime.-State v. Washington (La.)

638.

[blocks in formation]

§ 21. Motions for new trial and in arrest.

A new trial for newly-discovered evidence will be granted only where the evidence has been discovered since the trial, and due diligence to procure it at the trial was shown, and it was material, and went to the merits, and was not cumulative, and ought to produce an opposite result on another trial.-Mitchell v. State (Fla.) 242.

Rev. St. § 2851, prohibiting a grand juror to serve as a member of a trial jury to try an indictment found by him, being expressly made conditional on a challenge by the defendant for that cause, a grand juror is not absolutely disqualified; and. on an acceptance by the defendant without exercising this right of challenge, an objection after verdict is too late.— Denmark v. State (Fla.) 269.

Errors in the course of a trial cannot first be objected to on a motion for a new trial.-State V. Slutz (La.) 179.

The objection, on motion for a new trial, that the information informed the jury that there had been a previous trial and conviction, and new trial granted, comes too late.-State v. Gonzales (La.) 626.

A new trial granted on defendant's motion reopens the whole case and disposes of the plea of autrefois acquit.-State v. Washington (La.) 638.

Motion in arrest of judgment, where the defendant averred, without reference to any ruling, that prejudicial errors had been commit ted, held properly disregarded.-State v. Bou line (La.) 885.

Where the object of newly discovered evidence is to discredit a prosecuting witness, a new trial will not be granted.-State v. Young (La.) 993.

Testimony of jurors, on motion for new trial, that conduct of sheriff, in calling to bailiff having them in charge that, unless they returned a verdict at once, they would be held until a following day, induced an immediate verdict, held admissible to impeach the verdict.-Shaw v. State (Miss.) 209.

§ 22. Judgment, sentence, commitment.

and final

In a sentence, it is unnecessary to say, "It is hereby adjudged and decreed that,' etc.State v. Slutz (La.) 179.

§ 23. Appeal and error, and certiorari. Where a single general assignment embraces refusals to give more than one instruction, if any one of the several instructions was erroneous, the assignment will not be considered. -Easterlin v. State (Fla.) 350.

Where a charge is assigned as error, and the assignment is not entirely abandoned, but is insisted upon in the briefs in good faith, though the real ground on which it is erroneous is not clearly pointed out, the court will reverse the judgment, where such instruction is erroneous and prejudicial.-Easterlin v. State (Fla.) 350. Judgment of a court having jurisdiction of a criminal prosecution held conclusive, while it remains the judgment of the highest court vested with such jurisdiction.-State ex rel. Wynne v. Lee (La.) 14.

Where a fine does not exceed $300, and imprisonment does not exceed six months, the supreme court has no jurisdiction of an appeal. -State v. Pitre (La.) 133.

Under Const. art. 85, the jurisdiction of the supreme court in criminal cases is confined to questions of law alone.-State v. Burton (La.) 291.

Where a city has failed to show due publication of an ordinance, and it is apparent that competent evidence was obtainable, the case will be remanded on appeal by the other party to enable the city to produce such evidence. -Pucheu v. Town of Jennings (La.) 864. § 24. Presentation and reservation in lower court of grounds of Exceptions to the conduct of jurors in a criminal case, where no ruling of the trial court is asked or had, do not present any question for review on appeal.-Sanders v. State (Ala.) 564.

review.

Objections to instructions, urged for the first time on motion for new trial, will not be considered on appeal.-State v. Weston (La.) 383. Failure of record to show arraignment and plea held not subject of complaint for first time on appeal.-Arbuckle v. State (Miss.) 437.

So far as Code 1892, § 4370, provides that failure of the record in a criminal case to show jurisdictional facts is not ground for reversal, in the absence of objection below, it exceeds the power of the legislature.-Arbuckle v. State (Miss.) 437.

[blocks in formation]

Final sentence, from which time to take out an appeal runs, as to the state, means final action quashing the indictment or putting an end to the prosecution.-State v. Barranger (La.) 13.

Prior to taking out an order of appeal, delay begins, as relates to defendant, from the day the final sentence is passed.-State v. Barranger (La.) 13.

Appeals in criminal cases from justice court under Code, §§ 82, 84, 86, held returnable at the next term after the appeal bond is filed.Ex parte Grubbs (Miss.) 741.

§ 26.

Record and proceedings not in record.

Where defendant's objections to questions were overruled, it is no ground for reversal unless the bill of exceptions shows that the questions were answered and what the answers were.-Cartiledge v. State (Ala.) 553.

General objections to questions, without stating the precise ground thereof, will not be considered on appeal.-Mitchell v. State (Fla.) 242.

Refusal of severance in a criminal case will

not be reviewed, where the facts of the case are not in the record.-State v. Watkins (La.) 10.

Failure to file transcript of appeal within 10 days after order granted held fatal to the appeal.-State v. Barranger (La.) 13.

Testimony in transcript will not be noticed, unless it comes up as part of a bill of exceptions.--State v. James (La.) 44.

Testimony must be copied into the bill of exceptions, or, if detached therefrom, must be referred to in the bill and specifically made a part thereof.-State v. James (La.) 44.

Joint trial on a joint indictment held not error, where no objection was made.-State v. Sims (La.) 71.

Bill of exceptions must make such a statement of the facts complained of as will show error.-State v. Smith (La.) 132.

An exception to the method by which an objection is saved must specify the particular finding objected to.-State v. Pitre (La.) 133.

The record on appeal must contain a transcript of so much of the testimony as will enable the court to determine whether an error has been committed.-State v. Pitre (La.) 133.

A bill of exceptions to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, merely reciting the motion, its overruling, and the reserving of a bill, is insufficient.-State v. Slutz (La.) 179.

Where challenge to a juror by the state for cause is sustained, the accused has no ground of complaint where he had not exhausted his peremptory challenges.-State v. Harris (La.) 646.

A ruling excluding certain evidence as ir relevant will not be disturbed, where there is nothing in the bill of exceptions showing the connection necessary to prove its relevancy.State v. Harris (La.) 646.

A bill of exceptions held to be accepted as true, and effect given to it.-State v. Guy (La.)

1012.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Refusal of new trial in criminal prosecution,
sought for misconduct of jurors, held within
the sound discretion of the trial judge, and
not revisable by the supreme court.-Sanders
v. State (Ala.) 564.

Refusal to allow withdrawal of plea of not
guilty and interposition of plea in abatement
is matter of discretion, not reviewable.-Davis
v. State (Ala.) 569.

The overruling of the motion for a new trial
is not reviewable.-Smith v. State (Ala.) 806.
Argument by the state's attorney in a homi-
cide case held not reversible error.-Lide v.
State (Ala.) 953.

It is not reversible error for the court to
refuse to interfere with the argument of the
counsel, because illogical or not based on rea-
sonable inferences from the facts.-Mitchell v.
State (Fla.) 242.

Where, from the standpoint of the verdict, a
charge was favorable to the defendant, he can-
not complain thereof. though it was erroneous.
-Mitchell v. State (Fla.) 242.

one side or the other of the middle as thus
defined.-State v. Burton (La.) 291.

special allegations as to errors concerning facts
General allegations as to errors of law, and
found by the jury, will not be considered on
appeal as grounds for reversing an order deny-
ing a new trial.-State v. Edwards (La.) 308.
On certiorari to review a conviction for viola-
tion of a city ordinance, the judgment will not
be reviewed on the ground of the insufficiency
of the evidence.-State ex rel. Thomas v. Hall
(La.) 1002.

Defendant, who exhausts his peremptory
challenges, is in a position to complain of er
ror in overruling a challenge for cause inter-
posed by him.-Klyce v. State (Miss.) 339.

The erroneous admission of evidence, in a
prosecution under Code 1892, § 1590, for a
penalty for the illegal sale of liquor, held, un-
der the evidence, not to warrant the reversal
of judgment for plaintiff.-Clark v. Adams
(Miss.) 746.

CROPS.

Renting on shares, see "Landlord and Tenant."
See "Agriculture.”
$ 5.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Objection to a question. followed by an ex-
ception to allowing it, will not be considered, See "Witnesses," § 3.
where no testimony was given in answer to it.
-Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

Discretion of trial judge in permitting lead-
ing questions is not reviewable on writ of er-
ror. Myers v. State (Fla.) 275.

Where the state on cross-examination ques-

See "Trial," § 2.

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE.

CUSTODY.

tions defendant's witness as to supposed prior Of jury, see "Criminal Law," § 13.
contradictory statements, and witness denies
making them, and no effort is made by the
state to prove them, error in allowing such
cross-examination is harmless.-Myers v. State
(Fla.) 275.

Where there is sufficient evidence to sustain
a conviction, and there is nothing to support an
assumption that the jury were improperly in-
fluenced by considerations dehors the record,
a verdict on conflicting evidence will not be dis-
turbed.--Teal v. State (Fla.) 282.

Mere belief on the part of a juror that the
verdict would leave the sentence under the
control of the judge, and not carry with it
necessarily a sentence of death, is not ground
for reversing a conviction.-State v. Smith
(La.) 132.

A judgment of the supreme court, overruling
a motion in arrest of judgment based on con-
tention that indictment is insufficient, disposes
of the objection that no evidence is receivable
under the indictment because of insufficiency.
-State v. Slutz (La.) 179.

The decision of the trial court, from the con-
sideration of the testimony, as to the venue of
the crime charged and the guilt of the party
accused, will not be reviewed.-State v. Me-
Adams (La.) 187.

A finding of fact in a criminal case, whether
the trial is by the court or by the jury, is con-
clusive of the supreme court on appeal.-State
v. Burton (La.) 291.

The ascertainment of the location of a bound-
ary, in order to determine jurisdiction, is a
question of fact, and is not reviewable in the
supreme court on appeal in a criminal case.--
State v. Burton (La.) 291.

Though the determination of what is the
middle of a river is a question of law; when
such middle of a river is defined as the half-way
point between the banks, it is a question of
fact whether an object in the river is on the

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

Admissibility of evidence as to employer's cus-
tom as to employment of servants, see "Mas-
ter and Servant," § 1.

Rule binding an owner to pay a percentage
on a building such as the architect may figure
out, and at a price which he puts upon its prob-
able cost. will not be adopted by the court.-
Sully v. Pratt (La.) 161.

An owner, not apprised of a schedule of char-
ges obtaining among architects, is not bound by
such schedule.-Sully v. Pratt (La.) 161.

DAMAGES.

Compensation for property taken for public
use, see "Eminent Domam," § 2.
Death of party assailed as terminating right to
punitive damages, see "Abatement and Re-
vival," § 2.

Damages for particular injuries.
See "Assault and Battery." § 1; "Death," § 1:
"False Imprisonment," § 1; "Trespass," § 2.
Breach of contract of transportation, see "Car-
riers," § 3.

Ejection of passenger, see "Carriers," § 6.
Forced discontinuance of illegal business, see
"Action," § 1.

Mental anguish arising from nondelivery of
message, see "Telegraphs and Telephones."
$ 1.

Refusal to permit inspection of corporate books,
see "Corporations." $5.
Wrongful discharge of servant, see "Master
and Servant," § 1.

Wrongful injunction, see "Injunction." § 4.

Recovery in particular actions or proceedings.
See "Replevin," § 2; "Trover and Conversion,"
§ 1.

« PreviousContinue »