On a trial for murder, when the defense is
self-defense, evidence of threats made by de-
ceased is admissible.-State v. Smith (Mo.)
270.

On a trial for murder, evidence of threats
made by deceased, but not communicated to
defendant, is not admissible when defendant
was unquestionably the aggressor in the af-
fray in which deceased was killed.-State v.
Smith (Mo.) 270.

In a prosecution for murder, facts held to
show that a statement made by deceased was
a dying declaration.-State v. Garth (Mo.) 275.
In a prosecution for murder, a copy of a
coroner's certificate of death is inadmissible.
-State v. Garth (Mo.) 275.

Evidence of a previous quarrel held admissi-
ble as res gestae in a prosecution for homicide.
-State v. Nelson (Mo.) 749.

Evidence, in prosecution for murder, as to
the customary condition of lights in the vi-
cinity of the killing, held properly excluded.-
Nelson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 95.

Finding of guilty in prosecution for assault
with intent to kill held sustained by evidence.
-Lewis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 185.

Evidence of the boisterous acts and conduct
of deceased shortly prior to his death held ad-
missible in a prosecution of manslaughter.
Hampton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 526.

On a trial for murder, evidence considered,
and held, that certain threats made by defend-
ant were sufficiently connected with deceased
to be admissible.-Brown v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 529.

Where, on a prosecution for murder, the mo-
tive was ascribed to the accused's relations
with the deceased's wife before her marriage,
evidence that the accused had attempted to ob-
tain medicine to produce an abortion was admis-
sible.-Weaver v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 534.

On a prosecution for murder, evidence of re-
mote acts held admissible to prove motive.-
Weaver v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 534.

Evidence considered, and held insufficient to
justify a conviction of murder in the first de-
gree.-Black v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 906.

Under Pen. Code, art. 654, evidence on prose-
cution for murder held not to establish the
corpus delicti.-Williams v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1059.

Where there is evidence that deceased was
robbed before being murdered, it is competent
to show that when arrested, immediately after,
defendant had money on his person.-Chapman
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1098.

On the trial of defendant for murder com-
mitted in his saloon after robbery, evidence
held admissible of a rope and bottel of chloro-
form being found in the saloon.-Chapman v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1098.

In a prosecution for murder, the clothes worn
by decedent at the time of the difficulty are
admissible in evidence.-Thornton v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 1105.

Under the evidence in a prosecution for mur-
der, held, that a charge on manslaughter was
properly refused.-Hatcher v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 97.

Instruction in prosecution for assault with
intent to kill held to sufficiently cover defend-
ant's theory of self-defense.-Lewis v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 185.

In a prosecution of two defendants for murder
by shooting, a charge considered, and held not
erroneous as to appellant, because holding both
responsible, which ever fired the fatal shot,
while both were shooting at deceased.-Ander-
son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 523.

In a prosecution for murder, where the causes
claimed to reduce the homicide to manslaugh-
ter are not among the adequate causes enumer-
ated in the statute, it is not necessary to group
the facts in the charge on that issue.-Ander-
son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 523.

Under the evidence in a prosecution for man-
slaughter, an instruction limiting defendant's
right of self-defense to reasonable expectation
or fear of death held erroneous, as omitting
his right to defend against serious bodily in-
jury.-Hampton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 526.

with murder in the first degree, was tried for
Where defendant, charged in the indictment
murder in the second degree only, held not er-
ror under the evidence to refuse to charge that,
if the evidence showed he was guilty of murder
in the first degree, and no inferior degree of
homicide, the jury should acquit.-Worthan v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 526.

On a prosecution for murder, evidence held
insufficient to require an instruction that the
language of deceased should be considered, to-
gether with any hostile act or demonstration,
as justifying the homicide.-Driver v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 528.

On a prosecution for murder, where defend-
ant's testimony tended to prove self-defense,
failure to charge on self-defense held error.-
Wesley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 904.

Where, on a trial for assault with intent to
murder, the court properly charged as to threats,
it is not error to fail to single out isolated acts
and charge therefrom.-Miles v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 912.

In a prosecution for homicide, it was not error
for the court to fail to charge on manslaughter;
that offense not appearing to be in issue.-Solo-
mon v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 915.

On a prosecution for assault on a policeman
with intent to murder, a charge to the jury bas-
ed upon the authority conferred on peace of-
ficers by Pen. Code, art. 342, to arrest persons
unlawfully carrying a pistol, held not justified
by the evidence.-Mooney v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 926.

On a prosecution for assault with intent to
murder, committed upon a policeman, in which
the defense was self-defense in resisting unlaw-
ful arrest. a charge to the jury upon self-de-
fense, without reference to the right to resist
unlawful arrest, held erroneous.-Mooney v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 926.

with intent to kill a policeman, held erroneous
An instruction, on a prosecution for assault
in failing to state the circumstances authorizing
arrest without a warrant.-Mooney v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 926.

Evidence on a prosecution for assault with in-
tent to murder held sufficient to raise the issue
of manslaughter or aggravated assault, and
failure to charge thereon was error.-Mooney
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 926.

On a prosecution for assault with intent to
murder, committed upon a policeman, evidence
of the unlawful attempt of the oflicer to arrest
defendant held to require a charge to the jury

Under Pen. Code, art. 654, on prosecution for
murder, held error not to charge on the ques-
tion of corpus delicti.-Williams v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 1059.

The failure to submit the issue of self-defense
in a prosecution for assault with intent to mur-
der held not error under the evidence.-Fur-
lough v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1069.

Under the evidence, an instruction on man-
slaughter held properly refused on a murder
prosecution.-Greer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

1075.

On a trial for murder, a charge that defend-
ant should be found guilty, whether he par-
ticipated in the acts which caused the death
or not, held error.-Faulkner v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 1093.

A charge that if defendant was an owner of
the saloon in which a murder was committed,
and was present and knew of the murder, he
was guilty as a principal, held error.-Chap-
man v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1098.

On a prosecution for murder, held error to re-
fuse to charge that under a certain theory of
the case accused would not be guilty as a prin-
cipal in the homicide.-Renner v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 1102.

A charge that under certain circumstances
defendant had a right to arm himself on going |
onto decedent's premises was misleading, where
he only had an ordinary pocketknife.-Thornton
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1105.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge as to
principals held not inapplicable to the facts.-
Thornton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1105.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge that,
if defendant had abandoned the difficulty in
good faith," his right of self-defense would be
perfect, held misleading.-Thornton v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 1105.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge relat-
ing to self-defense held insufficient.-Thornton
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1105.

§ 8.

Appeal and error.

The omission of the word "feloniously" in

an instruction defining murder is not reversi-
ble error.-State v. Garth (Mo.) 275.

Where there was neither lawful provocation

nor lawful excuse for the killing of deceased,
a failure to properly define "lawful provoca-
tion," or improperly defining it, is not reversi-
ble error.-State v. Craft (Mo.) 280.

Where one indicted for assault with intent
to murder is found guilty of an aggravated
assault, he cannot complain of a failure to
charge as to the distinction between murder and
manslaughter.-Miles v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

912.

Where defendant, indicted for murder, is con-
victed of an aggravated assault, the failure
to charge as to simple assault is not reversible
error. Simmons v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1067.
Where defendant, indicted for murder, is con-
victed of an aggravated assault, he is not
prejudiced by failure to charge on the different
forms of homicide.-Simmons v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1067.

HOSPITALS.

While the county board of health may employ
such physicians at the county pest house during

compensation of the persons thus employed is
in the fiscal court of the county.-Walker v.
Henderson County (Ky.) 15.

The fiscal court cannot refuse to make rea-
sonable compensation to persons thus employ-
ed by the county board of health in the reason-
able exercise of its discretion.-Walker v. Hen-
derson County (Ky.) 15.

Where the members of the county board of
health resigned during a smallpox epidemic.
and the fiscal court appointed a committee of
the former members of the board of health, up-
its members to take charge of the pest house,
on being reappointed and again taking charge of
the pest house, had power to discharge the phy-
sicians who had been employed by the fiscal
court.-Walker v. Henderson County (Ky.) 15.
The fiscal court cannot refuse to make com-
pensation to a physician thus employed because
the physician employed by the fiscal court re-
fused to surrender charge to him, as he gave
up his business and held himself in readiness
to perform the services he was employed to
perform.-Walker v. Henderson County (Ky.)

15.

HOUSEBREAKING.

See "Burglary."

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See "Curtesy"; "Divorce"; "Dower."
Acknowledgments by married woman, see "Ac-
Election of widow between testamentary and
knowledgment," § 1.
other rights, see "Wills," § 5.
Fraudulent conveyances between husband and
wife, see "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.
Mechanics' liens on estates of married women,
see "Mechanics' Liens," § 1.
Rights of survivor, see "Executors and Admin-
istrators," § 3; "Homestead," § 5.
Transfer or incumbrance of homestead by hus-
band and wife, see "Homestead," § 4.

§ 1. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili-
ties.

during marriage of certain property of which
Where a husband had the right of possession
his wife had a life estate, under Rev. St. 1825.
p. 216, § 4, and Rev. St. 1835, p. 119, § 5. a
purchaser under execution sale of his interest
acquired the right of possession during such pe-
riod.-Hall v. French (Mo.) 769.

Forged deed of husband held inoperative as
to his wife, though she had executed another

deed to same land.-Abee v. Bargas (Tex. Civ.

App.) 489.

2. Disabilities and privileges of nov-
erture.

A note given by husband and wife for money
advanced for the payment of assessments on a
life policy held a valid obligation against the
wife, and not void as given to secure the hus-
band's debt.-Crenshaw v. Collier (Ark.) 709.
§ 3. Wife's separate estate.

Under Ky. St. § 508, providing that a non-
resident married woman may convey land by
deed executed under power of attorney, a resi-
dent married woman cannot convey in such
manner. Swafford v. Herd's Adm'r (Ky.) 803.

Under Rev. St. 1889, §§ 6864, 6869, a mar-
ried woman may give valid deed of trust to
secure her note, without her husband joining
therein.-Farmers' Exch. Bank v. Hageluken
(Mo.) 728.

In ejectment, a married woman held not en-
titled to damages for detention prior to the

INDEBTEDNESS.

1013.

§ 4. Community property.

Where a husband and wife own community
property, and the husband dies, leaving his
widow and a daughter as his only heirs, his
undivided half interest in the community prop-
erty descends to the daughter.-Simms v. Hixon
(Tex. Civ. App.) 36.

Where, on the death of a husband leaving a
widow and daughter, the community is incum-
bered with a mortgage, part of which is paid by
the widow, the share of the daughter should be
charged with one-half the total amount.-Simms
v. Hixon (Tex. Civ. App.) 36.

Where one dies intestate, leaving no children,
his surviving wife becomes seised by survivor-
ship of land held as community property, and
on her death intestate the land passes by in-
heritance to her children by former husband.-
Myrack v. Volentine (Tex. Civ. App.) 674.

A husband held entitled to have money earn-
ed by the wife and paid on debts contracted by
her for loans and for necessaries applied first
to the necessaries.-Cline v. Hackbarth (Tex.
Civ. App.) 1086.

Purchaser of vendor's lien note, secured by
community land sold by husband after wife's
death, held charged with constructive notice of
rights of heirs of the wife, two of whom were
in possession at the time of the transfer of the
note.-Davidson v. Green (Tex. Civ. App.) 1110.

IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CON-
TRACT.

See "Constitutional Law," § 5.

IMPEACHMENT.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.

IMPLIED CONTRACTS.

See "Account Stated"; "Contribution."
IMPLIED WARRANTY.

See "Sales," § 3.

IMPRISONMENT.

See "Arrest"; "Bail."

Habeas corpus, see "Habeas Corpus."

IMPROVEMENTS.

Allowances for improvements on cancellation
of deed, see "Deeds," § 1.

Liens, see "Mechanics' Liens."

veyances," § 1.

INDEMNITY.

See "Guaranty"; "Principal and Surety."
Against mechanic's lien, see
"Mechanics'
Liens," § 5.

INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
See "Grand Jury."

Ex post facto operation of laws relating to
prosecutions by indictment or information, see
"Constitutional Law," § 6.

Former jeopardy by conviction on defective in-
formation, see "Criminal Law." § 5.
Self-operative effect of constitutional provisions
relating to indictment and information, see
"Constitutional Law," § 2.

For particular offenses.

"False Pretenses":
See "Burglary," § 1;
"Forgery"; "Homicide," § 4; "Larceny," §§
2-4; "Mayhem"; "Perjury," § 2; "Rape,"
§ 2; "Robbery."

Obstructing highway, see "Highways," § 4.
Violation of liquor laws, see "Intoxicating
Liquors," § 6.

1. Formal requisites of indictment.
Where the record shows the court in which
an indictment is found, it is not absolutely nec-
essary to state the name of the court in the
caption.-State v. Craft (Mo.) 280.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2535, an indictment
is not fatally defective because it does not state
on its face the particular court in which it is
found. State v. Craft (Mo.) 280.

Where the clerk fails to place the file mark
on an indictment at the time it is received by
him in the county court, on proof that the
same was filed at a certain day, the county court
may order the latter date to be placed on the
indictment, which date is then to be regarded
as that of the filing.-Cauthern v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 96.

§ 2. Filing and formal requisites of in-
formation or complaint.

An information filed after the amendment of
Const. art. 2, § 12, and before the enactment
of a statute defining the procedure, held suffi-
cient, when it complied with requirements of
the common law.-State v. Kyle (Mo.) 763.

Information held valid, where signed with in-
itials.-State v. Kyle (Mo.) 763.

Leave to file information is unnecessary un-
der the common law.-State v. Kyle (Mo.) 763.
An information is not invalid under the com-
mon law because filed in vacation.-State v.
Kyle (Mo.) 763.

Where, in a prosecution for violating the

INCOMPETENT PERSONS.

See "Insane Persons."

INCORPORATION.

See "Municipal Corporations," § 1.

INCUMBRANCES.

On homestead, see "Homestead," § 4.

be supplied under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. art. 1498,
if not under Code Cr. Proc. art. 470.-Bradburn
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 519.