after commencement of delivery of materials to subcontractor, held effective as to materials subsequently delivered on order given from time to time.-Id. formal motion with notice. In re Geissler's Estate, 169 P. 822. IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFERI. OR JURISDICTION. Small balance for materials furnished subcontractor before written notice to contractor, held not recoverable from contractor and sure-188(6) (Utah) Comp. Laws 1907, § 686x11, ty when proofs were not certain as to whether the materials were delivered within 10 days before notice.-Id. IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. 150(2) (Okl.) Moneys expended by sheriff in feeding prisoners and fees due for discharge of duties imposed by Const. art. 25, § 18, art. 17, § 2, and Rev. Laws 1910, § 3197, are a valid charge against county, and not within limitation on indebtedness imposed by Const. art. 10, § 26. -Smartt v. Board of County Com'rs of Craig County, 169 P. 1101. 195 (N.M.) Under Laws 1917, c. 23, §. 4, providing for the disposition of moneys accruing from certain taxes, the word "accruing" means arising. Board of Com'rs of Lea County v. Board of Com'rs of Chaves County, 169 P. 306. COURTS. See Clerks of Courts; Constitutional Law, 68, 70; Contempt; Criminal Law, 90; Intoxicating Liquors, 197; Judges; Judgment, 807; Justices of the Peace; Municipal Corporations, 636; Statutes, ~63; Trial, 374–405. 1. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. 17 (Okl.) Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action.-Glacken v. Andrew, 169 P. 1096. II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCEDURE IN (D) GENERAL. 90 (4) (Utah) Comp. Laws 1907, § 686x10, subd. 2, declaring jurisdiction of city courts, and section 688, subd. 2, declaring jurisdiction of justices of the peace, being word for word the same, authorities relating to jurisdiction of the justices of the peace are in point in determining the jurisdiction of the city courts.Wrathall v. Miller, 169 P. 946. 91(1) (Cal.App.) Decision of Supreme Court in condemnation suit held decisive on appeal to Court of Appeals, in another suit, where the conditions, facts, and questions involved were the same.-Colusa & H. R. Co. v. Glenn, 169 P. 423. 97(5) (Or.) The construction of a federal statute is for the federal courts, and a state court must follow the rule which they announce.-State v. Hyde, 169 P. 757. 114 (Or.) Where proceedings relative to amendment of complaint by interlineation by leave of the court were not entered on the journal, held, that a nunc pro tunc order might be made upon the memory of the court alone.Richey v. Robertson, 169 P. 99. 114 (Or.) An order for a nunc pro tune entry of findings not stating what conclusion of fact or law had been theretofore made is insufficient, and such entry must neither add to nor take from the original.-Crowe v. Albee, 169 P. 785. 116(5) (Wash.) The proper method of correcting the record, after it has gone from the trial judge and become part of the files in the clerk's possession, is by formal order on stating limitations on jurisdiction of city courts, having failed expressly to deprive such courts of jurisdiction of civil actions for false imprisonment, such courts have jurisdiction of such actions.-Wrathall v. Miller, 169 P. 946. V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDICTION. 202(5) (Idaho) Where no provision for appeal to district court from order of probate judge is made by statute, attempted appeal from order striking motion to vacate default and set aside judgment is nullity.-Smith v. Peterson, 169 P. 290. Where default was taken in action for money Laws 1911, c. 194, § 4, appeal from probate under Rev. Code, § 4695, as amended by Sess. court to district court therefrom, although notice states that it is taken on questions of law and fact, will be deemed to be taken on question of law alone.-Id. Order of probate court sustaining plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's motion to vacate default from files was order contemplated by Rev. Codes, § 4844, and proceedings in that court subsequent to entry of judgment were reviewable by district court on appeal upon questions of law.-Id. On appeal to district court on questions of law alone arising on pleadings or files in action or appearing from docket of probate court, statement of case, as provided for by Rev. Codes, § 4839, is not necessary.-Id. Under Rev. Codes, § 4674, motion for relief from default judgment in probate court, made after expiration of 10 days subsequent to its entry, is nullity.-Id. Where there has been no trial of facts in case arising in probate court, it cannot be first tried in district court on appeal, but if reversed must be remanded to tribunal in which it originated.-Id. VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURIS DICTION. (A) Grounds of Jurisdiction in General. 207(4) (Cal.App.) If petitioner in superior court for probate of estate is entitled to writ of mandate in appellate court to compel clerk of superior court to file, number, and index petition separately, remedy may be plainly, speedily, and subsequently had in superior court, so that petitioner is not entitled to writ of mandate from appellate court.-Wolf v. Mulcrevy, 169 P. 259. VII. UNITED STATES COURTS. (G) Supreme Court. 397 (Cal.) Where a cause was appealed to the Supreme Court, which transferred it to a District Court of Appeal, and thereafter the Supreme Court refused to vacate the decision of the District Court of Appeal and hear the case, the Supreme Court has no authority to allow a writ of error from the United States Supreme Court.-Terry v. Southern Pac. Co., 169 P. 354. VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICT- (B) State Courts and United States 489(3) (Kan.) Action by owner of patent upon implied contract to pay reasonable value of its use with owner's consent is not an action for infringement of patent, and state courts Courts have jurisdiction, notwithstanding answer pleads legislation be declared malum prohibitum.-Hall invalidity of patent.-Ridgway v. Wetterhold, v. Johnson, 169 P. 515. 169 P. 1159. 489 (5) (Cal.) State courts have jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims to the possession of land after a homestead entry has been made.-Fuller v. Fuller, 169 P. 369. 15 (Mont.) Where after accusation was filed, but before trial, Rev. Codes, § 9006, providing for removal of county commissioners for illegal exaction of fees, was changed by Act Feb. 14, 1917 (Laws 1917, c. 25), so as to make willful. exaction of illegal fees an offense, county commissioner cannot be prosecuted under old act, it no longer being effective.-State v. District See Injunction, 62; Limitation of Actions, Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in and for Madi47. COVENANTS. (B) Covenants of Title. son County, 169 P. 1180. Proceeding begun under Rev. Codes, § 9006, against county commissioner cannot, after amendment by Laws 1917, c. 25, be maintained, such proceedings not being saved either by general law or specially in statute.-Id. IV. JURISDICTION. 39 (Wash.) Grantee may sue on covenants in deed, though he had knowledge of existence of railroad right of way across the land when he took a deed.-McDonald v. Ward, 169 P.90(2) (Cal.App.) Crime of common barratry is simple misdemeanor of which justice courts have general jurisdiction.-Platz v. Marion, 169 P. 697. 851. III. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, 100(1) (Wash.) Covenant in statutory warranty deed, pursuant to Rem. Code 1915, § 8747, subd. 1, that grantors were lawfully seised of indefeasible estate in fee simple, and had full power to convey, was covenant of seisin in præsenti, broken when made; grantors hav-239 (Kan.) While county attorney need ing no title.-Brown v. Carpenter, 169 P. 331. not take part in preliminary examination in felony case, unless requested by magistrate, yet if he appears he is, under Gen. St. 1915, § 2620, entitled to full charge of prosecution, and case should be dismissed if he so directs.Foley v. Ham, 169 P. 183. IV. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. 125(1) (Wash.) Where consideration for deed with covenant of seisin is property, damages for breach of covenant, possession not having been taken, there having been entire failure of title, is value of property given.241 (Cal.App.) Commitment to answer for Brown v. Carpenter, 169 P. 331. 125(3) (Wash.) Measure of damages for breach of covenant of seisin, where possession has not been taken by grantee, and there is entire failure of title, is purchase price with interest.-Brown v. Carpenter, 169 P. 331. COVERTURE. See Husband and Wife. CREDIBILITY. See Appeal and Error, 757; Witnesses, grand larceny is supported by information charging grand larceny by taking from person, under Pen. Code, § 872, requiring commitment to state generally nature of offense.-People v. Lepori, 169 P. 692. 244 (Kan.) Transcript of justice's docket, reciting that after preliminary examination defendant was required to give bail for his appearance in district court to answer charge together with defendant's recognizance, held sufficient to confer jurisdiction on district court.Foley v. Ham, 169 P. 183. 994; Criminal Law, 244 (Okl.Cr.App.) Where justice of peace CREDITORS. See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors; Bankruptcy; Creditors' Suit; Fraudulent Convey 260 (13) (Wash.) Where defendant appeals from conviction in police court of violation of municipal ordinance, trial in superior court is de novo, and where superior court allowed demurrer to complaint to be filed, its action amounted to permission to withdraw plea of not guilty filed in police court, if such permission was necessary.-City of Seattle v. Molin, 169 P. 318. 50 (Utah) In creditor's suit, defendant cannot be required to deposit stock with clerk of court as security for future judgments, which plaintiffs may obtain to satisfy rentals not yet (A) Judicial due.-Daniels v. Smith, 169 P. 267. CRIMINAL LAW. See Adultery, 15; Assault and Battery, I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF (Or.) It is fundamentally true that whatever may be enjoined by court of equity may by 311 (Mont.) The law presumes every person to be sane.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. 331 (Mont.) Burden to present issue of insanity and to furnish evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt on subject is on defendant.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to sues, and Res Gestæ. Is 354 (Mont.) In prosecution for mayhem, defendant, who set up uncontrollable impulse, having stated existence of impulse and causes thereof, accuracy as to information as to one cause was immaterial; only fact that he had information being material.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. (G) Acts and Declarations of Conspira tors and Codefendants. 424(1) (Or.) Declaration of conspirator, made long subsequent to acts pursuant to conspiracy, is inadmissible in evidence against declarant's coconspirators.-State v. Hyde, 169 P. 775. 354 (Wash.) Where plea of insanity is based on accused's good-faith belief of an assault upon a member of his family rendering him mentally irresponsible at time of commission of acts charged, the truth or falsity of his information is immaterial.-State v. Albutt, 169 P. 584. 361(1) (Mont.) In prosecution for homicide, where there was evidence that one of defend-424 (2) (Okl.Cr.App.) Testimony as to trans was identified by deceased while latter actions between witness and an alleged coconwas in hospital before his death, exclusion of spirator after offense for which defendant was evidence as to whether deceased was then un- being tried was authorized where evidence tendder influence of drugs was erroneous.-State v. ed to show defendant's presence at conversation, Fisher, 169 P. 282. though he denied-Blanck v. State, 169 P. 1130. (H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion of Parol Evidence Thereby. ants 361(1) (Wash.) Where prosecuting witness had made an affidavit that she did not think defendant intended to defraud her of money, held, that it was not error on trial for larceny to permit her to explain the affidavit.-State v. Hatupin, 169 P. 966. (C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused. 370 (Idaho) Evidence is admissible of acts, conduct, or declarations of the accused tending to establish knowledge, notwithstanding it may disclose different crime from that charged in information.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. 371(1) (Idaho) Evidence is admissible of acts, conduct, or declarations of the accused tending to establish intention, notwithstanding it may disclose different crime from that charged in information.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. 371(12) (Idaho) Evidence is admissible of acts, conduct, or declarations of the accused tending to establish motive, notwithstanding it may disclose different crime from that charged in information.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. 372(7) (Okl.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for incest committed with the defendant's daughter, evidence of previous acts of intercourse upon which prosecution was barred is admissible as showing a habitual course of conduct.-Williams v. State, 169 P. 655. (D) Materiality and Competency in Gen eral. 388 (Kan.) Where evidence showed robbery of store by several, two of whom remained in automobile while robbery was committed, evidence that those afterwards sitting in automobile in front of store under conditions similar to those at robbery could see into store to place of robbery was admissible.-State v. King, 169 P. 557. 438 (Cal.App.) Admission of photographs of place of killing was not improper, though they showed sticks of wood laid in street to indicate witness' idea of positions of deceased and defendant, where they were only used as an illustration.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402. 438 (Kan.) Photograph of accused is admissible to corroborate witness who identifies accused, and that it was found in rogue's gallery does not render it inadmissible.-State v. King, 169 P. 557. 444 (Idaho) Original records of liquor shipment of public or private carriers, prepared according to Sess. Laws 1913, c. 27, 86, are admissible under the law without identification of signature of consignee.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. (I) Opinion Evidence. 448 (3) (Cal.App.) Where one element in theory of self-defense was that defendant believed his life was in danger, it was proper for him to testify whether he believed he was in danger of death or great bodily harm, though jury need not accept his statement.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402. 489 (Mont.) In prosecution for crime, defense being insanity or uncontrollable impulse, defendant was entitled to ask medical witness questions designed to search his animus toward defendant.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code fendants. 507(7) (Okl.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for incest, where the daughter was over the age of consent, and voluntarily united with defendant in the commission of the offense, she is an "accomplice," and her uncorroborated testimony is (E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra- insufficient to sustain a conviction.-Williams v. State, 169 P. 655. tive Evidence. 510 (Okl.Cr.App.) The uncorroborated statement of an accomplice, which tends to connect another with the commission of a crime is insufficient to support a conviction.-Jones v. State, 169 P. 1133. 511(1) (Okl.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for incest, testimony of defendant's daughter as an accomplice held sufficiently corroborated by other evidence to justify a conviction.-Williams v. State, 169 P. 655. (K) Confessions. 406 (2) (Cal.App.) In prosecution under Pen. Code, § 269a, for cohabitation and adultery, certified copy of certificate of death of woman's child, signed by defendant, filed as required by Vital Statistics Act, §§ 4, 7 and 21, held admissible to prove that he was then living with her as her husband.-People v. Collins, 169531(3) (Idaho) In trial for grand larceny, P. 410. evidence held to show that defendants' confes418(2) (Mont.) In prosecution for murder, sions were freely and voluntarily made before testimony by persons present as to confronta- they were admitted in evidence.-State v. Notion of defendant by one of identifying witnesses lan, 169 P. 295. was admissible under Rev. Codes, § 7887, sub-535(1) (Okl.Cr.App.) Conviction cannot be sec. 3.-State v. Fisher, 169 P. 282. had on extrajudicial confessions of defendant, without evidence aliunde of corpus delicti.-Henry v. State, 169 P. 658. 419, 420(1) (Wash.) In prosecution for having possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell them unlawfully, testimony of agent of wholesale drug company as to sales to such defendant held not inadmissible as bearsay.-State v. Billingsley, 169 P. 845. 535(2) (Okl.Cr.App.) Direct and positive proof of corpus delicti to corroborate extrajudicial confessions is not indispensable.-Henry v. State, 169 P. 658. (L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination or at Former Trial. 539(2) (Kan.) Testimony of defendant, given on former or another trial, may be introduced in evidence against him.-State v. King, 169 P. 557. (M) Weight and Sufficiency. 562 (Mont.) If evidence does not prove commission of crime of which defendant is convicted, it is insufficient to sustain verdict, even if it tends to prove another independent offense.-State v. Kanakaris, 169 P. 42. 564(3) (Mont.) It is competent to establish both theft and venue by circumstantial evidence.-State v. Woods, 169 P. 39. XII. TRIAL. (A) Preliminary Proceedings. 628 (3) (Idaho) Permitting indorsement of name of witness on information on day case was called for trial, held not erroneous, where no surprise was claimed, and no continuance requested, and where matter as to which witness testified occurred more than a month after information was filed.-State v. Nolan, 169 P. 295. (B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General. 651 (1) (Cal.) Under Pen. Code, § 1119, providing that, when in the opinion of the court it is proper, the jury may view the ises, the matter of viewing the premises is entirely within the discretion of the court.-People v. Wong Hing, 169 P. 357. good faith, believing that he had the right to ask such questions.-Id. Where defendant, a Chinese person, testified in chief that he was 18 years old, district attorney was not guilty of improper conduct in seeking to compel an admission from defendant that he was twenty-eight or in asking him as to his identification papers.-Id. 730(9) (Colo.) In prosecution for selling ment that he considered it strongest of several intoxicating liquors, district attorney's argucases tried does not constitute reversible error, where court remarked that each case must be considered by itself.-Manzoli v. People, 169 P. 144. 770(2) (Mont.) Court, having charged jury that state was bound to prove beyond reasonable doubt every material fact necessary to make out offense, need not repeat rule in negative form or apply it to isolated facts.-State v. prem-778(7) (Mont.) In prosecution for mayhem, Powell, 169 P. 46. defended on ground of insanity or uncontrollable impulse, instruction on burden to present issue of insanity and to furnish evidence sufficient to raise reasonable doubt on subject which used word "guilt" instead of word "insanity" was justifiable.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. 782(1) (Cal.App.) Instruction that jury were bound to administer judgment according to the law and the evidence, and should not act by reason of their sympathies or sentiment, held not objectionable. People v. Bojorquez, 655 (1) (Cal.App.) That court imposed sentence of life imprisonment for murder did not show prejudice, as it would be assumed that it believed such sentence was deserved.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402. district attor 656(9) (Cal.App.) Where ney cross-examined a witness by asking an impeaching question, court's remark that it could not see any conflict in testimony as read and testimony of witness was not improper as an invasion of province of jury.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402. (C) Reception of Evidence. 169 P. 922. 787(1) (Okl.Cr.App.) Under Rev. Laws 1910, § 5881, where trial court by instruction called jury's attention to defendant's failure to testify in his own behalf over his objection, conviction cannot be sustained.-McLaughlin v. State, 169 P. 657. 670 (Mont.) Where questions to defendant's witness poorly calculated to elicit definite789(4) (Wash.) Instruction that to convict information were unaided by offers of proof to show scope and value of evidence sought, refusal to require answers was not erroneous.State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. (D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions. 696(5) (Mont.) Testimony received without objection is not subject to exclusion on motion to strike.-State v. Fisher, 169 P. 282. of false pretenses state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, etc., held not objectionable.State v. Pettviel, 169 P. 977. 789(18) (Idaho) Court may properly refuse to instruct acquittal, unless particular isolated fact is proven beyond reasonable doubt; proper instruction being that such doubt must arise if at all from all facts in evidence when considered together.-State v. Nolan, 169 P. 295. 800 (2) (Cal.) In prosecution for murder, where the court instructed on accessories, it and abetting," which are commonplace words, was not error to fail to define the term "aiding especially in the absence of a request.-People Wong Hing, 169 P. 357. (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. that jury should not be guided by consequences of their verdict held not objectionable, as directing directing that it be viewed with caution.-Peojury's attention to testimony of defendant, or 706 (Cal.App.) Where district attorney be-ple v. Bojorquez, 169 P. 922. lieved that important witness for defendant was not telling the truth, he might use every legal means within his power to vindicate his belief, and that his examination was unduly prolonged and unnecessarily persistent did not prejudice defendant.-People v. Ah Wing, 169 P. 402. In trial for murder held, that court could not say that district attorney was guilty of improper conduct in asking a witness certain postulating 814(3) (Mont.) Instruction facts not shown by evidence and authorizing indefinite and misleading inferences was properly refused.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. 814(13) (Mont.) Where it appeared that parties had separated after previous quarrel, requested charge on burden of proving which one was aggressor held properly refused.State v. Powell, 169 P. 46. 815(5) (Cal.App.) In prosecution for em had formed intent to steal horse and rig be- a different verdict, the movant would be entifore he hired it, instructions distinguishing be- tled to a new trial.-Id. tween larceny and embezzlement held not ob958(1) (Idaho) Affidavits setting out newjectionable, as ignoring such defense.-People ly discovered evidence which might reasonably v. Bojorquez, 169 P. 922. (H) Requests for Instructions. 825(1) (Mont.) Where court correctly charged jury in terms of statute, accused, if desiring further amplification, was bound to request appropriate charges.--State v. Powell, 169 P. 46. 825(3) (Idaho) Without request by defendant for instruction defining circumstantial evidence, given instruction cannot be attacked because not including such definition where so far as it goes it correctly states law applicable to facts in evidence.-State v. Nolan, 169 P. 295. 829 (1) (Cal.App.) Refusal of requested instructions given in effect in instructions read to jury was not erroneous.-People v. Byler, 169 P. 431. 829 (1) (Cal.App.) Striking out of parts of defendant's requested instruction, was not error, where court in a previous instruction had substantially given the matter stricken.People v. Bojorquez, 169 P. 922. 829(1) (Idaho) Error cannot be predicated on refusal of instructions when such instructions are iven by court in different form, but substantially as requested.-State v. Nolan, P. 295. result in a different verdict are sufficient to entitle appellant to a new trial.-State v. Lumpkin, 169 P. 939. 959 (Cal.App.) The matter of allowing a continuance of proceedings for new trial rests in the discretion of the trial judge.-People v. Brennan, 169 P. 239. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and 1023(8) (Idaho) Under Rev. Codes, § 8042, as amended by Sess. Laws 1915, c. 150, and section 8043, regulating appeals in criminal cases, no appeal lies from refusal to set aside indictment and overruling of demurrer, but they can be reviewed only on appeal from final judgment.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Low er Court of Grounds of Review. 1038(1) (Colo.) An alleged erroneous instruction cannot be reviewed, where no objection was made or exception taken.-Manzoli v. People, 169 P. 144. 1691042 (Cal.App.) On appeal from conviction of murder, claim of error in pronouncing judgment without having defendant's sanity passed upon by jury held not reviewable, where there was no action or order in court below involving such question.--People v. Taminago, 169 P. 696. cov-1048 (Idaho) Where exceptions provided for in Rev. Codes, § 7942, are not taken and saved when order complained of is made, ob 829(1) (Mont.) Instruction fairly covered elsewhere in charge so far as proper to be given need not be given when offered.-State v. Sheldon, 169 P. 37. 829(1) (Mont.) Refusal of instructions ered by those given is not error.-State v. Fisher, 169 P. 282. 830 (Cal.App.) Requested instructions which were not statements of law were properly refused.-People v. Byler, 169 P. 431. XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL 9252 (Wash.) That during intermissions permitted by court, and noon recess, woman juror was permitted to retire to judge's chambers, held not to warrant new trial.-State v. Harris, 169 P. 971. 935(1) (Idaho) When the circumstances upon which a verdict is based can be as reasonably explained upon some other hypothesis than that of guilt, or are as consistent with his innocence as his guilt, a new trial should be granted.-State v. Lumpkin, 169 P. 939. jections are waived.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. ✨1086(13) (Okl.Cr.App.) Where appeal is taken from alleged judgment of conviction, and transcript of record or case-made contains no copy of judgment of trial court, Criminal Court of Appeals does not acquire jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dismissed.-Harjoe v. State, 169 P. 659. 938 (1) (Idaho) A new trial will be grant-1086 (14) (Cal.App.) Defendant in a crimied for newly discovered evidence, even though such evidence is cumulative, if it is of so controlling a character as to probably change the verdict.-State v. Lumpkin, 169 P. 939. nal case, even if entitled to an instruction defining the purpose of impeaching testimony, could not complain of its absence where the record failed to show that he asked the court to give any instructions.-People v. Collins, 169 P. 410. 938(3) (Cal.App.) In trial for murder, where there was no attempt made to prove defendant's insanity, though his counsel's questions, sug-1086(14) (Idaho) To procure review of gested he was weak-minded, evidence tending to court's order refusing to set aside indictment or establish his insanity was not newly discovered information, or overruling demurrer, exception evidence.-People v. Taminago, 169 P. 696. 941 (2) (Idaho) Evidence of new facts, not brought out upon the trial, are not merely cumulative.-State v. Lumpkin, 169 P. 939. thereto must be saved in record.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. Where exceptions provided for in Rev. Codes, 87942, are not properly presented in record by bill of exceptions, objections are waived.-Id. 942(1) (Idaho) Evidence bearing directly upon the main fact at issue is not merely im- 1125 (Idaho) Trial court's overruling of a peaching, though its effect may also be to im- motion for arrest of judgment cannot be conpeach a witness for the state.-State v. Lump-sidered, where no such motion and order has kin, 169 P. 939. been incorporated in record.-State v. Maguire, 169 P. 175. 945(1) (Idaho) Where the evidence is not merely cumulative, and is such as to render a different verdict reasonably probable, a trial should be granted.-State v. Lumpkin, 169 P. 939. new Where the weight and effect of newly discovered evidence might reasonably result in (E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs. 1130(2) (Idaho) Record on appeal contain. ing reporter's transcript does not present question of insufficiency of evidence to support verdict, unless appellant in his brief points out |