AMENDMENT TO RULES1 COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI Rules of Practice in the St. Louis Court of Appeals Rule 24 is hereby amended to read as fol-, any case; and provided further, that in aplows: "Rule 24.-ORAL ARGUMENTS. When a cause is called for argument, the appellant will make his statement and proceed with his argument; the respondent will thereupon make his statement and proceed with his argument, the appellant replying, if he desires, and if he has not consumed all of his time in opening. The whole time consumed by either party in statement and argument shall not exceed sixty (60) minutes, unless the court, for cause shown, and on application made before the commencement of the argument in the case, shall otherwise order: Provided, however, that the court may, in its discretion shorten the time for argument in peals in causes originating before a justice of the peace, the time for argument shall not exceed thirty (30) minutes on each side. Cross-appeals shall be treated as one cause, and the plaintiff in the trial court shall be entitled to open and close the argument. When two or more cases are heard together, the court, in its discretion, will allot the time to be given for argument. Unless by permission of the court, counsel will not read to the court in extenso the written or printed argument on file, nor from reports or text books. The above rule to be in force and effect on and after June 6, 1910. 1 For rule as previously adopted, see 123 S. W. v. SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 2 urged upon one or more points in the application, or some new authority is cited, is filed during the term in which the judgment refusing the application is rendered, it may be considered; provided it be confined to the new matter presented. Motions for rehearing of applications filed after the adjournment for the term can not be considered. The presentation of any point previously presented in the application, without urging some new argument or citing some new authority, will be deemed a sufficient ground for dismissing the motion. 4. Upon refusal by this court of an appli- | in case one in which some new argument is cation for a writ of error, the clerk shall retain the application, together with the transcript and accompanying papers, for fifteen days from the day of the rendition of the judgment refusing the writ. At the end of which time, if no motion for a rehearing has been filed, or upon the overruling or the dismissal of such motion in case one has been filed, he shall transmit to the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals to which the writ of error was sought to be sued out a certified copy of the orders of this court denying such application, and overruling the motion for rehearing, in case such motion has been filed; and shall return the file papers of that court to the clerk thereof, but shall not return the petition for the writ of error. A motion for a rehearing of an application is not a matter of right. 126 S.W. 7. Causes in this court will be regularly submitted on Wednesday of each week, though a case may be set down for submission upon another day by the permission or direction of the court. But Amended March 15, 1906. 2 For rules as previously adopted, see 67 S. W. xi. (v)* CASES REPORTED ..1035 968 622 A. G. Edwards & Sons Brokerage Co., Atwater v. (Mo. App.). Belden, Ball v. (Tex. Civ. App.). Bell, Sarro v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 20 24 823 Bennett, Fincher v. (Ark.). 392 ...1027 ... 384 124 A. J. Deer Co., Melvin v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 681 Bevill, German Ins. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 Bennett, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. 607 ...1070 ..1007 229 235 236 324 Blais v. State (Ark.). ..1064 American Car & Foundry Co., Panos v. (Mo. App.). Blakemore, State v. (Mo.). 429 815 American Feed & Grocery Co., Pelican Assur. Co. v. (Tenn.).. Blanchard v. Olds Gasoline Engine Works (Mo. App.)... 828 .1085 Anderson, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. Bland & Stratton, Southern R. Co. in Kentucky v. (Ky.).. .1198 928 Blanton, Nunley v. (Tex.).. ...1110 Andrews, Reynolds & Co., Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.)... Blount v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 570 562 Aquilla State Bank v. Knight (Tex. Civ. App.) Arkansas Retail Credit Men's Ass'n v. Lester (Ark.)... 712 Boothe, Crystal City & U. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 700 Arkansas Southwestern R. Co. v. Wingfield (Ark.) Booth, King v. (Ark.). 830 76 Armor v. Frey (Mo.). 483 Armor v. Holly (Mo.). 495 Arnett, Garrison v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 611 Arnold v. Railway Steel Spring Co. (Mo. Boyman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). .1142 App.) 795 Asher, Pace v. (Ky.). 366 988 Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).... Page 573 29 448 360 Cabrillac, Cornet v. (Mo.)...... Callaway, Vaughan v. (Ark.). 1067 Campbell v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Cincin nati, Ohio (Ky.)............. 114 .1030 Commonwealth, International Harvester 352 821 Campbell, Gaither v. (Ark.) 1061 Campbell, Winn v. (Ark.). 1059 Cape Girardeau & C. R. Co., Hahs v. (Mo. App.) Continental Ins. Co. v. Johnson (Mo. App.) 966 Cooper, Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. (Ky.)....... 111 524 Cooper, Maxey v. (Ark.). 842 Carr, Miller v. (Ark.). .1068 Cooper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 862 Carr, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Ark.).. 850 Cooper, Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 35 1182 Cope, Moots v. (Mo. App.). 184 Carter-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Angelina County (Tex. Čiv. App.) 293 Corinth Woolen Mills v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo. App.). 803 Carter, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Cornet v. Cabrillac (Mo.). 1030 (Ark.) 99 Cornish v. Friedman (Ark.). .1079 Caruthersville Hardware Co., Stout v. (Mo. App.) Coryell, Gose v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. .1164 ...1092 ... Cassidy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). C. C. & H. Min. & Mill. Co., Hays v. (Mo.) 1051 274 .1109 Chappell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Chase, Dallas Consol. Electric St. R. Co. v. (Tex.) Chenault, Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. (Ky.)..1098 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Austin (Ky.).. 144 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Richards' Adm'r (Ky.) ...1105 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., Matthews v. (Mo.) 1005 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., Ray v. (Mo. App.) 543 Cox v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Crockett v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. Crowson, Mounce v. (Tex. Civ. App.). Crystal City & U. R. Co. v. Isbell (Tex. Cumberland Pipe Line Co. v. Stambaugh Cosby, Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. (Ky.) 142 13 ..1108 Couch v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Courtney v. National Annuity Ass'n App.) 866 (Mo. 987 886 771 984 602 243 915 700 47 106 |